The Hawaiian gazette., 1877-10-03
uuppant to the poicv Of our institutions and for.

transfer OF the Waiohinu Plantation.
If a contract, that is, an agreement by which |
one person binds himself to serve another is in |
its essence and nature unassguable, the law |
will not allow laborer to make contract which |
is 10 its terms assynable. He cannot make an |
engagement which is illegal und inconsistent
with the liberty which every mIn has of choos.
ing his own employer He may not so barter |
away his freedom in advance. though mis- consent
may be sought and obtained to serve the assignee
of the plantation when he is ascertained.
But 1t is urged by the plaintiff that in this
case there is no assignment Of the contract.
1t is true that this contract is not formally en-
dorsed over or assigned by apt words, and it is
true that the name of j. Mott Il Co., the origi-
nal employers, is used as the plaintiff in this suit.
But it is equally clear by the agreement of sale
and the evidence in this case that j. n OFT d Co.
have no further interest in the labor of this re-
spondent, except, as was suggested at the trial.
that they may have obtained an enhanced price
for their property on the understanding that the
laborers bound TO them at the time Of their
agreement could be held to labor on the planta-
ton after its sale. There is, however, nothing
in the papers TO show what part OF the consideru-
ton Of sale, if any, the value Of these labor con-
tracts constituted, nor is 1t at all clear that
Hutchinson could secure an abatement OF the
purchase money in the event of the law not al
lowing him TO compel the services OF these men.
1t is not to be presumed that an illegal con-
sideration entered into this agreement of SALE
nor that these parties contracted for transfer
of the men with the plantation. But Mr..
Hutchinson says that the crop of this year is
his that he is not accountable to j. Mott & Co.
for the management of the place or for any Of its
Losses or profits, or for any of its proceeds He
is the only one interested directly or indirectly
in the labor Of respondent. The service in
which it is sought to bold the respondent is that
OF Hutchinson aud not that OF j. Mott d Co.
To my mind 1t is no answer to say that j. Mott
& Co. are responsible. The laborer can have
practically no redress against them except upon
suit for damages in of msusage or viola
ton OF the terms of the labor contract. 1t would
be idle for the laborer to seek from j. Mott &
Co. notifications of the character of the work.
or change of tie rules of the plantation which
vary widely on each estate, or the dismissal, for
example, of an nhuman overseer, when the po-
sitiOn is insisted on by Mr.. Hutchinson that he
is not accountable to J. Mott & Co. for the
management of the place.
Although the title in the Waiohinu Planta-
ton is still in j. Mott & Co.. the possession of
the place is in Hutchinson. 1t is now his enter
prise. He is the virtual proprietor of the plan
tation so far as third parties are concerned. the
virtual assignee of the business, if not of the
iabor-contract of the respondent. To say that
Hutchinson Is not the virtual assignee either Of
the plantation or of the labor.contract, when be
is tie only one actually aud visibly enjoying
its proceeds and results and responsible for its
management is to make distinction without
q difference"
Practically Hutchinson is asking the Court to
say that the respondent shall be compelled to
work out for his (Hutchnson's) benefit con-
tract made between respondent and j. Mott g.
Co., and to which contract he is neither party
nor pTivy.
1t is obvious that the ownership of the land is
not essential. An agreement might be made to
sell and convey the estate at some date in the
future, its possession and profits not passing un-
til that date, which would not, in the least, af-
feet the contracts for labor.
II is quite true also that the agreement Of
sale of this estate, even accompanied with mme-
date possession does no; of itself annul the con-
tracts of j. Mott & Co., with the respondent.
An employer of labor does nothing to ytiate oil
annul the contracts of bis laborers by selling part
of his estate, or the whole of it, or by purchasing
more land or additional estates-providing the
service in which he claims to hold his laborels
be still his service, and not the service Of some
other person with whom the laborer did not con.
tract. 80 t-A -.aa
But in deciding whether, as this is personal
contract and the laborer is not bound to the
land as a serf, aborer could be held to follow
the service of his original employer whatever be
the changes in the character Of the employment
reference would have to be made to the terms o.
the contract as to the place of labor and wheth
er the new employment differed SO essentially
from the old as TO it's severity, hazardous nature
or disagreeable conditions as to make it unjus
or unreasonable to compel the aborer to perform
it for the same wages.
In saying that the contract for labor, being
one whose obligations cannot be delegated no
its advantages assigned is personal one, d.
not say that in order to preserve its vitality, the
employer should actually reside on his estate, g
into the field with his men and personally direc
and supervise them. Though be may be on alb
sentee in foreign the laborer chose hin
as his master, Knowing his character for fairness
liberality and humanity; knowing, too, the re
putation of the estate as reflected from the pro
prietor, as regards the methods of work, tn
character of the overseers or whatever particula
circumstance induced him to enter his service !
and to this master an appeal could always hnall
be made for redress.
!, 1t is no answer TO say that one master is a
good as another for the laborer, providing he fol
fill all the written conditions of his contract AM
: observe whatever the law commands, dom
: nothing that is forbidden by it. Men are no
cast IN the same mold, and so long as dlnerence
!, of disposition and character exist, just SO lon
i some masters will be preferred to others, ard tn
laborer, if he is free man ought to be allowed
: exercise bis right Of choice.
. Nothing need be said here to extenuate th
! injustice done TO the employer by his losing th
= money which he may have advanced to his Ell
plOyee, as wages, for which he has the rig ht t
expect service 10 return. If be, by dlspOsing {
his business to another, has placed himself in
position in which he is no longer able to afOr
: employment to his Iaborers. he cannot compiai
} that they are not able to repay him the advanc
or that the law will not compel them to Wor
out the advance in the service of another.
But little light is shed upon this questio
: from the authorities. We are peculiarly sltua
= ed. Here capital seeks labor In The countrie
= where the precedents of the common law ar
|. formed labor seeks employment
= But it has frequently been decided that an al
= prentice is not assignable. Hall ct al VS.. GAR
=, ner ct al Mass. 172, DAVIS vs. Coburn Mas
IL 299.
. In Clement vs. Clement N. H. 473. the 70
Y lowing language is used by Richardson G. j.
way of illustration
! There are cases, without doubt, where col
tract cannot be assigned without the consent I
:. both parties. Instances of this kind may
- found. where young men contract to labor Il
farmers by the month or the year, and where