The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-03-02

SheckS VS.. EeIdCn, = wal ldc I
Randallvs. Van Nechten, l9 Johns.
co.
Bank of the Metropolis vs.. Cults
chalk, ii Pet. 10 50.
(l) The Board is by statute
authorised to make contracts for the
introduction of Polynesian laborers.
This necessarily implies its liability,
in contract, for their return.
(5) The representation alleged
by the declaration that the passen-
gers should be 800 adults, was an
inducement to and part OF the con-
tract.
(6) The second count must hold
if the first count were adjudged to
be bad. If q special contract has
been mutually abandoned, or if the
defendants prevents the plaintiff from
fulfilling the special contract, in
debitatus assumpsit lies, and the
plaintiff may recover on the implied
promise. To join count on an ex-
press contract with a count on an
implied contract is often correct,
especially, "where the terms of the
special contract have been so far
performed that nothing remains but
to pay the money!" or, "if the de-
fendant prevents the plaintiff from
fulfilling the special contract"
l Ch. Pl. $50 (and n. f.)
In like manner plaintiff may
declare in one count on one special
contract and in another count on
another special contract, (if be is
not put to his election), so that if he
fail to prove his right in the one, and
can show it in the other, he may
recover.
Under the second count in this
case, no written contract need
be shown, but the plaintiff would
be at liberty TO prove a legal con-
tract between himself and the de-
fendant, and he certainly would
seek TO do so, if it were held that
the Charter party does not bind the
defendant
No inference is allowable that the
contract declared OF in the second
count is the written agreement
named in the first count, and as a
fact it is not. The case may require
an election of one of two inconsist.
ent claims, for the plaintiff cannot
recover on both if inconsistent, bu
the declaration is not bad for thai
reason. The plaintiff offers TO dis
continue as to the first count if ad
judged to be bad. Further as tc
) point (4).
! The Board of immigration exists
by express legislative authority p
p. ZIG, 519 Compiled Laws. Act
1887 p. 8, Acts 1888, p. 10; anc
has statutory authority to make con
tracts.
Legislative recognition of tn
corporate or quasi corporate exist
encc is conclusive of the fact agains
S every one but the State. Green
Brice's Ultra Wires, % n. a.
e "CoRpoRATIoNs BY IMPLICATION
c "Thcse are bodies to whom right
s have been given, or upon whol
: duties have been imposed, wmc
: rights and duties cannot be enforce
without considering the bodies hay
c ing them as corporations. Thu
e where the King granted TO the me
n of Islington TO be discharged frol
: toll, they were implicitly incOrpol
t ated for this purpose. ." 10.
"If powers are granted to a bod
e of men, which cannot be exercise
e except when acting in corporal
C capacity, corporation is created h
implication" 1b. p. % On. az
h Jansen VS.. Ostrander, l Cow. G7!
: Palmer VS.. Vandenberghetal,
p Wend. 1919.
Horton VS.. Garrison, ct alt, Z
: Barb. l76.
l. Williams VS.. Kcech ct alt. 4 Hi
e 16S, are cases of quasi corporation
n by implication, by reason of IL
public duties required.
S, Respectfully submitted,
AAFKED S. HARTwELL,
7. Plaintiffs Counse