Legal Opinion · Dissent

Corstorphine v. Bishop National Bank of Hawaii

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1935No. 2112Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION OF

PARSONS, J.

I cannot agree that the hypothecation card (the form of which is quoted at length in the majority opinion) is capable of interpretation in all its essentials as applied to this case as though it presented only a pure question of law; and I dissent from the view that its provisions may be construed as a matter of law by the court as an unlimited authorization to Williamson & Buttolph or either of them to hypothecate with any bank or banker the signer’s certificates therein named as security for Williamson & Buttolph’s firm or individual indebtedness to the bank.

S…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hanrick v. PatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Frink v. RoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Brown v. LairdOregon Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Wilson v. Wilson-RogersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  5. Okada v. AkahoshiHawaii Supreme Court · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API