The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-09-19
COURT CHRONICLE.
Decision ON Issues of the "Million
Dollar Suit"

Decision ON Issues OF the Million
Dollar Suit"
In the famous case of the Hawai-.
ian Commercial and Sugar Company
VS.. The Waikapu Sugar Company, a
decision of the Supreme
Court has been rendered, written by
Chief Justice Judd and signed with
him by Justice Bickerton and Cir
cult Judge Whiting, the last named
having by request sat instead of
Justice Frear, disqualified from hav-
ing been of counsel in the case. The
is on bill for partition of
land and for an account. Both par
ties agreed that partition might
be made, and the main question for
the Court was whether an account
of issues or profits should be order
ed. The bill was defended, by leave
of the Court, by George w. Macfar-
lane, a shareholder in and owning
one half of the stock of the Waika-
pu Sugar Co., the other half being
held by Claus Spreckels as trustee
for the plaintiff corporation.
The two corporations party to the
case owned each one undivided half
of the land known as the "Waikapu
Commons" containing altogether
$1,000 acres. In 1882 the Hawaiian
Commercial & Sugar Co. began to
fence in and cultivate in sugar cane
part of the land, continuing until
about 5000 acres was thus reclaimed,
this company irrigating the land at
its own expense. Mr.. w. H. Corn
we'll, manager and half owner of the
Waikapu plantation, notified Mr..
Macfarlane his partner in 1882 of
the cultivation of the common land
by the plaintiff company. Mr.. Mac
farlane then applied to Mr.. Spree
kels, principal owner of the H. @. g.
S. Co. stock, for division or settle
ment, and he and Mr.. Spreckels
agreed to meet upon the land with
a surveyor and ascertain if it could
be divided. The parties met in
July, 1882, went over portion of
the land together but came to no
agreement, Mr.. Spreckels not ex-
pressly declining to divide but dis
missing the subject when approach
ed by Mr.. Macfarlane, saying ''it
was not an easy matter to divide
the land"
The Court goes exhaustively into
the question of whether an custer
was proved by the defendant COM
pany as effected against it by the
plaintiff company. 1t finds there
was no custer. Mr.. Macfarlane's re-
quest for settlement is not regard.
ed as protest or objection to the
H. G. g. S. Co.'s occupation and use
of the land. The appeal is dismiss
ed, and the decree Of the Chief Jus
tice, which orders partition Of the
estate but without an account from
either party to the other, is affirm.
ed. Following is the syllabus of de-
cision:
where one of two tenants in
common entered into occupation oil
not more than his proportion of the
land owned in common and cult
waited the same, the other tenant
also occupying the rest of the land
he is not liable to account to the
other tenant for the profits mad,
thereupon from his own labor anc
capital, unless there be shown al
custer or its equivalent.
Two tenants in common O
moieties occupied separate portions
of the common property, not deny
ing each others title nor asking tc
be let into the portion Of the lane
occupied by the other; one tenan
asked the other for a settlement o
the matter but did not desire parti
ton. Held, not sufficient to consti
tute custer"
F. NJ. Hatch for plaintiff; A. S
Hartwell, Q. l.. Carter and Thursto,
s. Frear for defendant.
This decision bears upon tn
famous million dollar suit brough
by G.. w. Macfarlane against tn
Hawaiian Commercial and Suga
Company.
BANKRUPTCY OF BORBA.
Before Judge Cooper the petitio
of Antoine Borba, bankrupt, Wal
luku, for discharge, came up aud i
was ordered that the case be set 70
hearing on October 2, that the bank
| luPl piooohSo IN iclihlIcl dL tud
time to secure discharge, and thu
G. Bolte, the assignee, file his cleo
ton whether he appears as cred
itor or as assignee to oppose dis
charge; if the former he is to fill
specifications, if the latter he is re
stricted to his own statement as t
why he opposes discharge. G. ]
Carter appeared for bankrupt, n
one appearing to contest.
THE BANNING CASE.
There were two cases docketed o
the calendar in the matter of til
Banning estate. The second on
was only entered to-day, being g,
captions to Judge Writings ruin
previously reported in this pape
, against submitting the facts to
jury. Chief Justice Judd delivere
the opinion of the Court orally tn;
the two appeals could not come b
fore the Court at the same time, an
: as this question of renting cas-
, at Circuit Court chambers to a jul
; was new one, arising out of Il
law OF 1892, the Court would he
argument on the appeal relating