The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-02-13
supreme Court OftAo Hawaiian I,lAnds.-
In Bane0---JansAry Term. 1854.
HrE1A SueAR PLANTATION Coaraxr, vs.. JouS Nc
kEAGvr


The case comes TO this Court upon exceptions to
the overruliug Of demurrer TO the complaint.
The complaint AYERS. "that at the various times
and dates hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was
and now is q body corporate duly Incorporated un-
der the laws Of the State Of California. United
States Of America, and as such corporation then
was and nov IS acting and doing business on the
Island Of Oahu.
The demurrer reads THAT the said declaration
after alleging that the plaintiff is foreign cor
poration fails TO show or aege that the said cor
poratioa has complied with the law Of this King
dom by filing in the Otfee Of the Minister of In
terror the requisite designation Of person upon
whom service Of process could be made
There is abundant authority supporting the
view that in the absence Of legislation forhidding
is. u foreign corporation can sustain n suit be-
yond the jurisdiction wherein it was constituted
Silver Lake Rank V. North. l John Ch $40.
Angel and Ames on Corporations Chap. II.
But it is not necessary to enlarge upon this point
since We have statute which prescribeS that n
foreign corporation shall be denied the benefit Of
the laws Of this Kingdom unless it shall file in the
Interior Ofiice = designation Of q person upon
whom service Of process can be made; and BY Act
Of the Legislature of 1880 certain other requisites
are 70 be complied with
Il is quite generally held that a corporation NAV
declare in its corporate name without setting forth
in the declaration the act Of Incorporation An
cell and Annes Corp Sec. 62 and cases there cited
| But though II may not be necessary in the case
before Us TO set forth the charter Of the plaintiff
/ or the various steps 1t may have taken under the
/ laws of this Kingdom to enable 1t to do business
/ in this country, We think il is necessary to set
forth in the declaration that it is legally doing
business IN this county or some other expression
10 Indicate that 1t has complied with the laws of
| this Kingdom IN respect TO foreign corporations.
We think this Is necessary in order that an issue
can be made by which these facts can be enquired
| into. The averment that the foreign corporation
is nov acting and doing business in the island Of
Oahu might be true of a foreign corporation
| that has not complied with the laws of Hawaii.
In those countries where the common Law exists
| the rules Of special pleading would require thai
the question as to the corporate character Of the
plaintiff &c made by plea IN abatement, since by
pleading TO the merits the defendant admits III,
| capacity of the plaintiff to sue But the plea OF
the general issue BY our statute allows the de.
PENDANT ito give IL evidence as a defence to any
civil action any matter of law or fact whatever.
Civil Code, Secs. 1l05 and ll07. And under Thu
plea the plaintiff its amended petition would b,
required to show Its corporate existence and II,
compliance with the law. We allow the demurre,
on this ground and the plaintiff may amend nc
cordiuGly and the defendant answer IN twenty
days.
The further objection is made that the conclu
sion of the complaint Is insufficient in that tn
plaintiff merely prays that process issue citing de
| PENDANT to appear and answer the demand of tn
plaintiff whereas he should pray for process Il
cite the defendant to appear and answer this hi
complaint before jury of the country at the. go.
49,. term of this Court &c
The forms given in the Code for complaints il
civil actions are only guides TO peaders. Declara
tiOus may be IN substance" according to tn
form given. The law does not require an eIac
compliance with the form, and a prayer for pru
cess citing defendant to appear and answer wUul
entitle plaintiff to whatever process was suitabl
TO his case under the law. We think 1t better prac
tice to conclude with prayer for process as in
dicated in the form, but do not think the depaI
ture in the plaintiffs declaration to be fatal.
As regards the authority of VI. Neisser to max
| affidavit to the complaint as attorney, agent, o
director Of the corporation, We think this Is nc
a proper subject of demurrer.
p Neumann and l. Preston for plaintiff; J. n
Davidson for defendant.
| Honolulu, Feb. eth. 1884.