The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1875-12-15

ed any more personal service TO the partnership
neither does it appear that he recognized Hum
| phreys as partner. And the main question is
was the partnership dissolved BY the acts Of the
copartnersi
After the sale OF complainant TO Dowsett, aud
bis abandonment Of all partnership corporation,
and after the agreement to sell TO Humphreys all
the partnership property on respondents land at
Kailua, and it not appearing that there was any
partnership cooperation by these parties. it was a
strong case Of implied consent to dissolve the CO.
partnership.
Mr. Justice story, In his work on partnership,
sec. 272, says: As to dissolution by tacit re-
nunciation or by implication from circumstances,
it may arise in various ways, as by the withdraw
al of partner from the business Of the partner
ship, and engaging in other concerns or by his
refusal to act with the other partners in the bust
ness, or by his assigning over his share in the
partnership, or by his doing any other act utter
ly inconsistent with the continuing relation Of
partnership
1t is contended by the counsel for the respond.
ent that the sale to Dowsett by complainant,
and the subsequent sale to Humphreys by
spondent, was final sale Of all the partnership
property aud by the very terms Of the partner
ship worked dissolution. But the complain
ant contends that the sale by respondent Of all his
interest in the cattle and mules, was conditional
only, that the contract was executory and de-
pended on be contingency OF payment which
never happened. Possession was gwen to Hum.
phreys Of the property and be had the full en-
joymeut of it, and neither of the parties COM
plainant or respondent, ever exercised any con-
troll over the property. and Humphreys continued
in possession for the term of two years. The re-
spondent could not impose Humphreys on Will
lians as a partner, and there was no evidence
that this relation existed between them.
A conditional sale of the whole property sur
rendering possession of the same 10 third party,
SO that there is no further business of the CO.
partnership to do, amounts TO dissolution under
the articles, well as by the law which regulates
the co-partnership relation. 1t was the transfer
of all the respondents interest in the partnership
property, which severed the unity of interest be-
tween the contracting parties. Ketchu vs.. Clark,
Johns r, IA. MurayvS. Bagut IA Johns R.
3d. MeDguard vs.. N. Y. Man. Co., IL Johns
r, 525.
The interest OF partner is liable for his separ
ate debts and bis creditors can take by
assignment. or on execution, but they are
entitled to it, without the risk Of being partners,
neither are the solvent partners obliged to con-
tinue the partnership for the very good reason
that the property of the nsolyent partner is taken
out Of the concern. Respondent had nothing to
do as partner at Koolau, neither had Williams at
Waimalu. The property being sold, there was
nothing further for the partners to do but to set
tie the business and divide the profits or losses as
provided by the articles, and it is to be regretted
that they did not make settlement at that time.
partner cannot by the assignment of his inter-
est, int roduce his assignee into the co-partner
ship.
1t is well settled in England that an Act Of
Bankruptcy is dissolution of partnership, this
is by reason of the assignment, which sewers the
interest in the bankrupt by operation of law.
Camp, 44S, s Yesey jr., 295.
The partner who made sale of his interest in
q copartnership would be liable in damages un-
doubtedy for non-fuIfllment Of his co-partner
ship agreement.
am of opinion that the co-partnership Of Will
liams and Sawyer was dissolved by the act of
Williams in the sale Of all the cattle under his
charge at Waimaln, and his embarking In other
business, when taken in connection with the sale
Of all the partnership property at KOoau by Saw
yer on the first day of July 1865, and as this bill
was not brought within six years from that date
my judgment is that the suit is barred by the Stat
ute of Limitations. Bill dismissed each party to
pay his own costs.
w. O. Jones and Edward Preston for plaintiff,
r. H. Stanley and A. S. Hartwell for defendant.
Honolulu, Nov. 9th. 1875.