Stanley v. Barenaba
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | OPINION OF THE COURT BY WHITING |
| Citation | 12 Haw. 344 |
| Decision Date | 02 May 1900 |
| Parties | W. L. STANLEY, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT, v. AKOI AND J. H. BARENABA. |
12 Haw. 344
W. L. STANLEY, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT,
v.
AKOI AND J. H. BARENABA.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Hawai‘i.
Submitted December 19, 1899.
Decided May 2, 1900.
EXCEPTIONS FROM CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT.
The principal and surety on a guardian's bond were sued jointly, but no service of summons was made on the principal, nor did he appear to defend. Held, not necessary to serve all joint obligors under Sec. 1222, Civ. L.
It is not necessary for plaintiff to first exhaust all his rights against the principal before proceeding against the surety.
The complaint sets forth a cause of action, and the evidence supports the judgment.
L. A. Dickey for plaintiff.
J. T. De Bolt for defendant.
FREAR AND WHITING, JJ., AND L. ANDREWS, ESQ., OF THE BAR, IN PLACE OF JUDD, C.J., ABSENT.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY WHITING, J.
This is an action, jury waived, brought against the principal and surety for breach of the conditions of a guardian's bond. The action was commenced in the District Court of Honolulu, and from judgment therein for the plaintiff an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court by the defendant Barenaba the surety on the bond. The complaint of plaintiff says “That on the 28th day of March, 1895, defendants entered into a bond to H. E. Cooper, Second Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
[12 Haw. 345]
in the penal sum of two hundred dollars, conditioned for the proper performance by the defendant Akoi of his duties as guardian of the person and property of Laahia, a minor, of Kailua, Koolaupoko, a copy of which bond is hereto attached and made a part hereof. That on the 23d day of September, 1898, said defendant Akoi was by order of A. Perry, First Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, discharged as guardian of the person and property of said Laahia, and C. Lai Young of Honolulu was appointed as such guardian in his stead, and Akoi was ordered to pay to said C. Lai Young, guardian, the sum of $290.60 which was the amount remaining in his hands to the credit of the ward, at the time of his discharge as guardian. That though requested said Akoi has failed and neglected to pay said sum until this date and no one else has paid said sum to said C. Lai Young, guardian. That this failure is a breach of the condition of said bond. Wherefore plaintiff brings this suit on said bond and asks judgment for $200.”
Service of summons was made upon Barenaba the surety who appeared and defended, but no service was made on Akoi the principal nor did he appear to defend.
The bond is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tropic Builders, Limited v. Naval Ammunition Depot Lualualei Quarters, Inc., No. 4370
...Brandow v. Vroman, 29 App.Div. 597, 51 N.Y.S. 943; Silberfeld v. General Ins. Co., 183 Misc. 845, 53 N.Y.S.2d 83. So, in Stanley v. Akoi, 12 Haw. 344, a surety objected to further proceedings when the principal on the bond, named as a defendant, was not served. Though his point was not sust......
-
Yet v. See Sang Co., No. 1134.
...yet the attempt to raise the question in this court for the first time comes too late. Iaukea v. Cummings, 9 Haw. 558; Stanley v. Akoi, 12 Haw. 344; Lee Lun v. Henry, 22 Haw. 165, 168. The exceptions are...
-
Saiki v. Sing, No. 1417.
...objections which have not been saved in the court below [27 Haw. 403]cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Stanley v. Akoi, 12 Haw. 344, 347; Fraga v. Portuguese Mut. Ben. Soc., 10 Haw. 128; Iaukea v. Cummings, 9 Haw. 558. The next exception urged is that the court erred in refusin......
-
Butterfield v. Bon
...86 N. Y. 575. If the breach of the condition to insure can be proved with precision, then the objection fails. This may call for negative [12 Haw. 344]evidence, but still may be capable of satisfactory proof, even through Spring the mortgagor. But we are not to pass upon this proof. The agr......
-
Tropic Builders, Limited v. Naval Ammunition Depot Lualualei Quarters, Inc., No. 4370
...Brandow v. Vroman, 29 App.Div. 597, 51 N.Y.S. 943; Silberfeld v. General Ins. Co., 183 Misc. 845, 53 N.Y.S.2d 83. So, in Stanley v. Akoi, 12 Haw. 344, a surety objected to further proceedings when the principal on the bond, named as a defendant, was not served. Though his point was not sust......
-
Yet v. See Sang Co., No. 1134.
...yet the attempt to raise the question in this court for the first time comes too late. Iaukea v. Cummings, 9 Haw. 558; Stanley v. Akoi, 12 Haw. 344; Lee Lun v. Henry, 22 Haw. 165, 168. The exceptions are...
-
Saiki v. Sing, No. 1417.
...objections which have not been saved in the court below [27 Haw. 403]cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Stanley v. Akoi, 12 Haw. 344, 347; Fraga v. Portuguese Mut. Ben. Soc., 10 Haw. 128; Iaukea v. Cummings, 9 Haw. 558. The next exception urged is that the court erred in refusin......
-
Butterfield v. Bon
...86 N. Y. 575. If the breach of the condition to insure can be proved with precision, then the objection fails. This may call for negative [12 Haw. 344]evidence, but still may be capable of satisfactory proof, even through Spring the mortgagor. But we are not to pass upon this proof. The agr......