Teves v. Reade

Citations

• 23 Haw. 564
• 1916 Haw. LEXIS 42

Syllabus

<p>Municipal -Corporations — auditor—issuance of warrant.</p> <p>In the absence of a showing of fraud, or dispute as to the amount found by the board of supervisors to be due, the auditor of the city and county of Honolulu is without authority to refuse to issue a warrant drawn by him in payment of a claim duly allowed and ordered paid by the board of supervisors.</p> <p>Words and Phrases — “any person.”</p> <p>The words “any person,” as used in Sec. 2801 R.'L. 1915, relating to garnishment, include municipal corporations.</p> <p>Garnishment — municipal corporations — public policy.</p> <p>Public policy may demand- that a sum set apart for the erecting or making alterations and additions to a public building should not be liable to garnishment during the progress of the work, for the debt of the person contracting to do the work, for that might prevent its completion; but when the work is finished and the money has been earned and is standing to the credit of the contractor with the municipal corporation, it should be subject like any other property to the payment of his debts. The cases of Laredo v. Nalle, 65 Tex. 359, and Pringle v. Guild, 118 Fed. 655, cited and followed.</p> <p>Same — same—liability as garnishee.</p> <p>Under the facts in this case, held, that a municipal corporation, like an individual or private corporation, is subject to the process of garnishment for an ordinary debt due by it to a third person.</p>