Legal Opinion

Lord v. City & County of Honolulu

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1910PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal prom Circuit Judge, Eirst Circuit.

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

HARTWELL, C.J.

With the exception below mentioned the case is correctly stated by the plaintiff as follows: “This is a bill for injunction brought by a taxpayer to restrain the City and County of Honolulu from entering into a contract with J. A. Gilman for the paving of a portion of Port Street, Honolulu, and to restrain the auditor of the city and county from making payments under said contract. The complaint is based on the facts that this contract involves the expenditure of over $500, to-wit about $16,000, of public money for a public work, and that it was awarded…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dean v. CharltonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Harrison v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  3. Fishburn v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Nicolson Pavement Co. v. PainterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  5. Woods v. MonroeMichigan Supreme Court · 1868

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Co. v. TerritoryHawaii Supreme Court · 1912
  2. West v. County of HawaiiHawaii Supreme Court · 1918

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API