The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1870-02-02
ms. LvIe, vs.. styles, 2 Wash. c. c. a24.

1t is, however clear principle Of law, that part
nership property shall be devoted to partnership
purposes. The partnership must be allowed for all
sums paid for Mecalfs private debts, for the
of his family from proceeds Of sugar. No de6eien-
ces In the Executors accounts shown, and in
the argument, the charges concerning the wood,
shocks, &c, also concerning unreasonable delay TO
account are withdrawn. The sums admitted as
paid on private account are, sll, 7g5. s2,Ii606
IS, $50. and 8, S2l. These are to be allowed the
fund.- and can not be regarded as ehArgeable to the
plantation. story's Part, sS2s.
If debts incurred By Metcalf for the purpose Of
furnishing means, agreed, to carry tbs planta
tion, were paid out Of the proceeds Of sugar, the
sums so paid are to be allowed TO the firm, but
allowance is to be made for payments Of interest.
The evidence fails TO satisfy that interest was
paid against the complainants' protest, or that
higher rates were paid than were required TO raise
funds.
~ The partners argued that all simerovements''
should revert to the plantaton without this clause
all improvements and ali articles paid for by Net
calf's money. or by money which he obtained would
have belonged to his estate. Bat il seems that the
firm invested to some extent the proceeds OF the
sugar The question arises. whether the improve
ments paid for by the undivided profits arc TO be
regarded as firm property, revertng, under the
original agreement; and If they revert, Is to the
meaning of the term improvements. We are Of the
opinion that the partners enlarged the business BY
investing proceeds of sugar sales In addition to the
means furnished by Metcalf under the original agree
ment concerning the reverting Of improvements.
The term improvements, according to Bouvier,
applies principally to buildings though generally
It extends to amelioration of every description OF
property, whether real or personal"
The old rule concerning fixtures and standing
crops, is greatly enlarged in favor of tenants for
the encouragement Of trade and agriculture. Nil
Ter VS.. Plumb, 8 Cow, 665. In Lawton vs. Lawton,
Atk., l3, fre-engine, erected by tenant for
colery, was held not to be fixture. So with ma
chinery erected for manufacturing purposes, on
tmbers imbedded in the soil, or fastened thereto
with bolts. House House, 10 Paige, I5S Also,
looms in woolen mill. Murdock vs. Clifford, 1SN.
Y, 2s. And machinery in a cotton mill. removable
without any injury to itself or the building Van
derpoel VS.. Van Allen, 10 Bar. l6l. But such rule
would not hold between vender and purchaser or
mortgager and mortgagee. Winslow vs.. Merchants
Ins- Co., Met, S06.
In the present case, the proper rule is that which
prevails between landlord and tenant as 10 i'm
provements purchased by common funds, and as to
the crop remaining at the date of the winding up Of
the partnership, which not until the expiration
of the original ten years from December a. 1851
We are of the opinion that all stock tools, and
engines removable without injury to the buildings,
and bought with partnership funds, and the crop
standing December IA, 1857, are to be regarded as
firm property.
As for the sums paid for labor contracts, Ii paid
from money derived from the business they must be
4
necessary to obtain the labor. An apportionment
of sums paid, between the firm and the estate,
could only be made under an agreement. to that
effect In Metcalfs letter to Waller, of July 10Th,
1855, after writing that he has fifty coolies from the
MatadoT, at $3.50 each for their contracts, (which
A., W. & Co. will send you," he adds: As their
contracts may have to be transferred at the end Of
your tsr it will be best to keep them in good CON
dition, in order to realize much as possible on
them Not so good lot that came in the same
day per Golden West, realized $50 each for their
contracts for five years, at IS per month" We
think this shows the intention of the partners that
for the term OF labor remaining to the estate an al
lowance should be made the irm, deductlng, OF
course loss by death disease and such allowance
may be made in regard to the coolies: but no such
agreement about the native laborers was made.
The statutes do not require-and It does not ap-
pear-tbat the Court ordered any apprasement By
the Executors AS for the mortgage and notes given
by the Executor to liabilities incurred BY Met
calf-whatever may have been the legal right Of the
Executor to give them, against heirs and credit
ors,-it does not appear that the firm were injured
thereby, as their profits not devoted to paying
the principal, and for the interest thereon, the rm
was liable No allowance can be made for any sup
posed profit that might have accrued from different
course as there seems to have been no bad faith
shown in the course pursued
1t viii be remembered that, although the con-
plainants have good claim against the estate for
sums paid from proceeds of the business for Met
calfs private account, yet the firm were liable for
sums advanced for the plantation
An order Of reference to q Master may be taken
out, directing appraisemsnt Of the net value Of
the crop standing Dec 14th, 1857 and Of the mple-
ments and machinery already stated, and Of all
sums allowed to the fund, and Of the respective
shares therein Of the complainants, Of one-hfth
each; and upon the coming In OF the Masters re-
port, decree will be made, accordingly in favor Of
the complaInants.
R. H. Stanley and s. H. Phillips for eomplainants
c. G. Harris, ]. Montgomery, H. Thompson and
A. F. Judd for respondents.