State v. Coney

3 Citing cases

  1. City & County of Honolulu v. Bishop Trust Co.

    421 P.2d 300 (Haw. 1966)   Cited 2 times

    The payment of the estimated amount into court reduces the interest, which otherwise runs from the date of summons in the form of blight of summons damages, subject to set-off of the rents and profits received after the date of summons. State v. Coney, 45 Haw. 650, 372 P.2d 348, rehearing denied, 46 Haw. 50, 373 P.2d 903. It is our conclusion that the meaning of the statute is plain, and that upon the issue before us, which is whether the taking of possession prior to final order of condemnation was unauthorized because it was made at a time when the City was not prepared to immediately devote the property to the contemplated public use or to do work directed to that end, no ground for reversal of the summary judgment has been shown.

  2. City & County of Honolulu v. Kam

    48 Haw. 349 (Haw. 1965)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that issue of whether there was a garnishable debt became res judicata on affirmance of the judgment

    In that same connection it is noteworthy that the City's attorney was to draw the deed, whereas in the usual case the seller would be responsible for the preparation of the deed. See R.L.H. 1955, ยงยง 8-23, 8-31; State v. Coney, 45 Haw. 650, 372 P.2d 348, rehearing denied, 46 Haw. 50, 373 P.2d 903. The term "instrument of writing" was construed in Waialua Agricultural Co. v. Oahu Ry. Land Co., 19 Haw. 446, 449-50.

  3. Estate of Campbell

    46 Haw. 475 (Haw. 1963)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that a stipulation entered into by a guardian ad litem without investigation by the court was "not binding under the rule ofLalakea"

    Since payment is not made on that date, in order to compensate therefor the condemning authority must pay interest, subject to a set-off for rents received, so as to put the property owner in the same position as if payment had been made contemporaneously with the summons. State v. Coney, 45 Haw. 650, 372 P.2d 348; reh'g den., 46 Haw. 50, 373 P.2d 903. We agree with the trial court's holding that such blight of summons damages are a proper credit to income and affirm the ruling.