The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1883-08-08

. sssj !taaAS 80 ! ne oAl.A tltCt OF deureci
The com rightqt tat -'-7rld be his =, =
Judgment against the defendant 80 % treat
removal from office; but such judgment
would be nugatory, for the directors might
Immediately reins;ate him." Citing Common
wealth vs.. Dearborn Is Mass, l25 and the
King VS. Corp. Of the Bedford level, East,
$50
l fail to..see how the Writ of quo uaraHtg
could be made to apply or would afford the
relioLdesired, even if it he conceded that the
managcrship Of the plantation is an office in
the corporation and that respondent is holding
or usurping it without authority.
The judgment which the court would pro-
nOunce, if in favor of the applicant would be
Of 0uster This merely settles the title to the
office and the court would declare him " not
qualified to fill the office of which he performs
the duties, and forbid him to perform them
any longer" Chap. NXXIX Laws Of ls7G
SiO-il. It must be borne in mind that the de
murrer assumes that the facts alleged in the
Bill Though not its inierences) are true, even
though raising iurisdictional questions.
Now the Bill alleges that respondent has
been removed from the position as manager by
the President Of the corporation, pursuant to a
resolution of the directors and share holders,
and that by refusing to surrender the manage
mcnt and control Of the plantation, the proper
ty Of the corporation, great and irrcparable
injury in respect to the labor and crops and
otherwise concerning the plantation may re
suit In deciding this demurrer these ale
cations must be considered to lie true
II will be noticed that in many Of the cita-
tons from authorities above made, the courts
qualify the statement that a court Of equity
cannot try questions of title TO office by cx-
prcssiuus similar to the following, unless the
Jurisdiction attaches by reason Of some con-
sideratiOu in the particular case, by reason Of
which the court Of law cannot afford adequate
relief" 20 Barb. So and ? High Inj Sl256.
After an enumeration Of the various cases in
which the remedy Of injunction may be ap-
piled given in billiard on Injunctions D. s, the
author says, "Thcse however, are far from
being all the instances in which this species
Of equitable interposition is obtained 1t
would indeed be difficult to cnumerate them
all; for in the endless variety of cases in
which plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief,
If that relief consists in restraining the COM
mission or continuance of some act Of the de-
icndant, court Of equity administers it by
means of the Writ of injunction" 8" The
extent to which the jurisdiction may be car
ned is not marked out by any adiudgcd case,
and from the nature Of things it must forever
remain underlined"
Lord Redesdalc in his summary Of the
general objects Of equity jurisdiction gives as
one Of them (G). To restrain the assertion
Of doubtful rights in a manner productive
Of irreparable damage" Story's Equity
Pl. Si72. The object sought for in the
Bill before me is analogous
The acts Of a removed manager Of a sugar
plantation in declining to surrender full con
troll or by interfering with the management
might be considered as a continuing trespass
and if this be coupled with an allegation that
great and irreparable damage is likely to be
occasioned by such acts Of respondent, there
is no doubt in my mind, Of the Jurisdiction Of
a court IN equity to restrain them.
The Bill substantially covers this ground. |
l therefore override the demurrer; respondent
may answer over in ten days.
smith & Thurston for plaintiff. F. NJ |
Hatch for respondent.
Honolulu, May 2sth, 1883.