Case Name: BENJAMIN F. DILLINGHAM v. M. F. SCOTT, KONA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, AND F. B. McSTOCKER, GARNISHEES
Court: Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1910-02-28
Citations: 20 Haw. 55
Docket Number: No. 34
Parties: BENJAMIN F. DILLINGHAM v. M. F. SCOTT, KONA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, AND F. B. McSTOCKER, GARNISHEES.
Judges: Hartwell, C. J., Perry, J., and Circuit -Judge Whitney in place of De Bolt, J.
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 55–55

Head Matter:
No. 34.
BENJAMIN F. DILLINGHAM v. M. F. SCOTT, KONA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, AND F. B. McSTOCKER, GARNISHEES.
Error to Circuit. Court, First Circuit.
Petition for Rehearing filed February 25, 1910.
Decided February 28, 1910.
Hartwell, C. J., Perry, J., and Circuit -Judge Whitney in place of De Bolt, J.
Kinney, Ballou, Prosser & Anderson for plaintiff.
Defendant in person.
The petition for rehearing is based, on the ground that the judgment ought to have been for the defendant upon the facts in the case which this court has said were proved, namely, that the Kona Sugar Co. was the accommodated party; that there was an original express promise of indemnity, and that of the two contracts of indemnity whereby the plaintiff was to have been held harmless (the implied obligation of the Kona Sugar Co. to pay the note and the express promise of defendant to pay the plaintiff) the plaintiff looked only to the defendant’s express promise and not to the Kona Sugar Co. on its implied obligation to pay the note or reimburse the plaintiff for the money paid and expended for its use.

Opinion:
Per curiam:
The question sought to be presented upon this petition is not presented in the writ of error and not being therein assigned as error was not before the court for consideration and cannot now be considered. Petition for rehearing denied under the rules without argument.