The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1882-06-28

EDIToR GAzETrE: The decision Of the Supreme
Court in banco in the case Of A. Dreier vs.. Kuaa
and another, in which the plaintiff claimed the
defendants services under written contracts to
work for him. ION the Island Of Kauai demands
careful attention.
The defendants refused 10 labor for the plaintiff
on certain land and crops Of which he had sold
99-1OO, and on which they had been working under
their contracts. The plaintiff, for $1,000 had
sold 99-lOo to Haneberg, by whom it vas sold to
the Koloa Sugar Company Dreier had agreed to
convey the remaining 1-lOOth to Haneberg and his
assigns on demand for the consideration Of one
dollar.
The defendants refusal to work was based on
this sale, and the supreme Court sustain their
refusal The Court in its opinion say that the case
of The Haihse Plantation q. halaBH rs decisive
Of this unless the retention Of this purely nominal
interest, amounting to one dollar in value, leaves
work done on that plantation IN part work done
for Dreier and by his direction or the direction Of
his agent overseers': and further I'VE cannot
think So We think he retains substantial in
terest in the work done or the profits arising on
that plantation. We cannot direct the defendants
to labor on this plantation, for he
has no interest in it, there is no privity of con-
tract between these laborers and the owners Of the
koloa Sugar Company, and therefore the defend
ants cannot be compelled to work on this Planta-
ton
In the waihee cases, the laborers had agreed to
work "for the owners Of the Waihee Plantation"
then Harris and Nidemann. Harris sold out TO
Widemann, who afterwards sold TO Makee and
Spreckels reservIng Of one Peg cent of the pro-
ceeds Of the crops, IN consderatA n of reduction
in the agreed price, and Of Widemann's continu-
ing TO employ the labOrers.
The Court held that the labor could not be en-
forced ON the Naihee Plantation the ground
that partnership was not created by division
Of the proceeds, and that Widemann had mo voice
IN the management Of the estate; but the Court
distinctly admitted that, whatever changes may
take place IN the original firm employing the
laborer the contract continues to be binding so
long as one Of the original members in the firm,
10 whom the laborer can lOOK for payment of his
wages for direction as TO his labor and for humane
treatment"
With all Difference to the vievs Of their Honors,
il is not easy TO the parallel between the Waihee
and Dreier cases. After the Wal1ee decision,
Widemann had no difficulty in enforcing the labor
contracts on small lot Of land which had
reserved at the sale.
The Waihee decision was based solely on IL .,
ground that the retention Of share of gross pro
ceeds created no partnership with the purchasers
In the Dreer case: Dreier while still owning l-lOO
Of the land and crops claimed the right to enforce
the labor on that land IN which be was such nart
owner. The fact that the sale of 99-IO0 with an
agreement to convey the other 100 on demand
was arranged in order TO retain the laborers and
secure payment Of their debts. is stigmatiZed by
the Court n device made in order TO set at
naught the force of the waihee decision" The
practice Of Incorporating plantations has been
largely due to the desire to avoid difficulties about
labor, and is equally device as far as that
purpose IS concerned
Nor is it easy TO see why 100 of the property
sold by Dreier is not Substantial interest" As
long as he retains any interest he can direct the
labor, and whether he owns any of the land OF
not the laborers can look to him for wages direc-
tons and humane treatment for be cannot release
himself from these obligations. Certainly Dreier
retains these relations to his labor until he parts
with his LOO share
60 vuv r4ntSf ,uftHe
agreement 10 convey the rest, are TO cause loss Of
labor contracts it is important that employers of
labor should be well advised OF the fact.
The Supreme Court held IN the case of the sale
by Mott 10 Hutchinson that the purchaser could
enforce labor contracts TO Mott 'and his assigns"
In the Dreier case the seller of 4l00 is held TO be
incapable himself Of enforcing il on the property
Of which such sale is made under contracts to
work for him ''on the Island of Kauai The
theory Of holding that contract cannot be en-
forced after a sale Is that labor contract is not
assicnable by the employer. The Mott case held
that such a contract is assignabe by consent of
both parties, But the theory Of assigning labor
contract does not apply where as in the Dreier
case. there was no attempt or pretence of an |
assignment, but the original employer claims to |
enforce the labor on land and crops in which he |
is in fact and law a part owner.
HoSoLULU, June -, 1852.
EDTTuR GAZITTE: There Is nothing in our statute |
which makes labor contract invalid If II IS |
assigned the statute merely declares that the |
death of the employer puts end to the contract
but that in case the servant is bound TO a com |
pany the death Of a partner, or the change of |
partners in the company does not release the |
servant Our Courts, however, have applied the |
theory of the common law, in holding that labor |
contract can only be enforced by the original
pluyer and not by his assigns. This theory does |
not in any way require that an employer shall |
continue to own the land, or that he should ever |
have owned the land on which the laborer is re- ]
quired to work.
The only object OF enquiry in each case is whether
the employer still letains his control over the la.
borers, and the laborers can still look TO him for
their wages and for proper treatment and direction.
For this purpose it has never been pretended that
the employers personal presence with his laborers /
is required.
To hold that laborers are released from con-
tracts !. the employer sells the land which /
they are employed implies that the employer by /
such sale has parted with all right TO direct the
labor. for Of course he cannot divest himself OF /
his obligation under his contract TO pay the wages
and give proper treatment.
This right Of control OF direction is not lost by /
the employer selling even all his land. The buyer
if he expects the employer TO direct the labor ON
such land must Of necessity allow him to direct
and control it. This control is only lost by the
employers death. OF by his doing some illegal act
in violation Of the labor contract, by his volun
tarily parting with it by assigning the labor, an
act which above stated would be held to be invalid.