Everett v. Bolles
Hawaii Supreme Court
In Equity.
1Opinion of the Court
Decision of
Judd, J.
An order was issued to the Marshal, returnable February 16th, 1875, to show cause why the execution in the above entitled cause, issued February 2d, should not be fully satisfied.
It appears that on the 8th day of February a garnishee process was issued from the Supreme Court in the suit of Bishop & Co. vs. Everett, one of the above plaintiffs, B. F. Bolles (defendant above), garnishee, and the answer of the Marshal sets up that the defendant Bolles retained the sum of $390, as said garnishee, to abide the judgment of the Court, and he submits whether such retention is not…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Waters v. TravisCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1812
- Prescott v. ParkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Fisk v. HerrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Gager v. WatsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
- Sharp v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ditto v. McCurdyHawaii Supreme Court · 2003
- Ferry v. Hakalau Plantation Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1913
- Ditto v. McCurdyHawaii Supreme Court · 2003