The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1875-12-15
SUPREME CoURT---IN EQUITY.
9Th November 1875.
JOSHUA R. WILLIAMS rs. c. r. QUICK,
Executor Of The VII Of HENRY
H. Sd WYER.
OPINION OF Cu1EF JUSTICE ALLEN.

OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE ALLEN.
This bill of complaint sets forth that on or
about the month of January, 1860, the complain
mt entered into copartnership with the defend
ant in the business of graziers and cattle dealers,
and articles of copartnership we're duly executed
by the parties.
1t appears by the articles that the parties at
the time of entering into the copnrtnership, to
wit on the 23d day of January 1861 each party
put into the copartnersbIp stock, certain num-
Der of cattle, but unequal in numbers and the
difference was made up by the payment of the
sum of $1,000, by Sawyer to the complainant, so
that their interests were made equal. And fur
ther it was mutually agreed that said consolldat-
ed stock and their increase should continue until
said stock should be finally disposed of by the
parties, and that the profits should be equally
divided, or if loss should accrue in the business,
the same should be paid equally. 1t was further
agreed that the copartnership should continue
ten years, unless dissolved by mutual agreement.
The complainant further alleges that the CO.
partnership business and trade was entered upon
and was to be carried on until the copartnership
expired by its limitation Of ten years. And
the complainant further alleges that the defend
ant has made sale of partnership property, aud
demands an account OF the partnership TRANSACT
tons.
Tie answer of the respondent admits the exc
cution OF the articles of copartnership but ayers
that 10 March or April 1864, the plaintiff sold all
the cattle on his run at Wainalu without con-
suting with defendant and defendant AYERS, that
said sale put al end to SAID agreement, and fur
Their AYERS that there has beef no partnership
dealings between them since that time And he
further AYERS that complainant, after the Rfore
said sale Of the cattle left bis run at Waimalu
and entered upon the business of sugar planta-
ton, and as he supposed the business was closed
he had kept no copartnership accounts.
The evidence in this case is not very satisfacto-
~, as neither party kept any accounts. But it
appears by the evidence Of Mr.. Dowsett that be
purchased Of the complainant 545 head of CATTLE
being all the herd IN the Immediate charge OF
complainant at Waimalu in 1864. And it ap-
pears further in evidence by Mr. Humphreys, that
the respondent in July L, 1865, made an agree
ment with him to sell him certain lands, and all
the property on the same, consisting Of pens,
fences, houses, farming utensils, CARTS ploughs
and all property on said lands, and also all the
interest the respondent had to all cattle, horses
and mules wherever running branded J IT. VI
or Il; IN, being the same brand Of the cattle
sold Dowsett
Mr.. Humphreys further testi6es that Sawyer
told him that be only sold him an undivided half
OF the cattle and mules, he adding, I'VE then came
into town and was introduced to j. r. Williams
as being partner, as | was 10 possession but be
says was no partner of Sawyer" He further
testi6es, " his agreement with Mr.. Sawyer was
dated July L, 1865, WIS to continue till February
l, 1867, and he remained 10 possession till that
time, when he relinquished it, for the agreement
was not complied with, BY failure to pay according
TO its terms.
This case was commenced on the 9th October,
1873, and sometime afterwards, the respondent
died. and the case was revived against the nd
ministrator Of said respondents estate. 1t is es
pecially TO be regretted that the case was not
tried during the lifetime Of respondent.
1t does not appear that there we're any &C.
counts kept by either party and no evidence of
demand for settlement, notwithstanding the large
sales made BY each party. 1t appears that the
respondent resumed the possession OF all the pro-
perty, which be bad agreed to convey to Hum
phreys, on the LIST OF July 1867, and continued
in the same till he made sale Of the cattle to Mr.
E. b.. Boyd on the 1lth Of January 1862 This
deed together with the agreement with Hum
preys, were placed on record.
1t does not appear By the evidence that either
party called the other to account after the sale
TO Dowsett, or after the agreement to sell to
Humphreys, or the actual sale to Mr.. Boyd.
After complainant sold to Dowsett, he went
into the business OF the sugar plantation, and 1t
does not appear BY the evidence that be render