The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-06-08
OPINION OF TIE COURT BY EREAR, ]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR, J.
This Is an appeal from decree
ordering specific performances OF an
agreement for an exchange OF leases.
The defense Is twofold, first, that
there was no contract, and secondly,
that the statute Of frauds was not
complied with
Whether there was a contract or
not depends upon whether the writ
ten cffer of April 6, 1888, made by
the defendant was accepted by the
plaintiff 4 few days afTer the re
ceipt OF the offer by the plaintiff
corporation. its directors held
meeting and voted to accept 1t.
Immediately after the meeting the
plaintiffs manager, according to- his
own testimony, called upon the de-
fendan6's then president and notified
him orally that the offer was accept
ed By the plaintiff The DEFENDANTS
presidents does not remember this
but admits that it may be true. A
similar oral notice of acceptance ap-
pears TO have been given few
weeks later by the plaintiffs secret
ary TO the defandant's president,
although there is some difference Of
opinion as to Just what was said at
that time There Is some evidence
that on several subsequent OCCASIONS
the Defendants president made
statements to the plaintiffs officers
tending to show that the former con-
sidered the contract closed and bind
ing But on one occasion IN partIc
uIar, as shown by the testimony OF
three OF the plaintiffs officers. q
meeting was held by these three
officers and two Of defendants
officers at the request Of the latter,
the object of which was to obtain a
release from the contract, the reason
for this being that the defendant
had purchased or was about TO pur-
chase certain other property II fee
simple upon which to erect It's electric
works and therefore had no further
use for the Ieasehold premises The
testimony of the plaintiffs officers.
eorroborated a. It IL by the conduct
OF defendants officers, clearly es6ab-
fishes the contract The doubt upon
this question IN the mind Of defend
ants president, who was the only
witness for the defense, appears TO
have arisen from his idea that the
acceptance must be N writing In
deed. he himself goes SO TAR as TO say
that aside from the fact that he had
received no written answer he belIev-
ed until recently that the contract
was binding. This brings US to the
- L. -
that the statute Of frauds required
the contract TO be signed by the
plaintiff az well as by the defendant
The statute requires the con-
tract to she signed by the party to
be charged Herewith" This can
mean only the defendant, whether
vendor or vendee, lessor or lessee.
By the express terms OF the statute
ina few of the United States the
contract must be signed by the party
who Ia to make the convey ance,
whether plaintiff or defendant But
under eur ssautHe. as held almost
uniformly under similar statutes else
whesre. unless the terms OF the con
tract itself require the signature OF
both parties or of the one who after
wards becomes plaintiff, the sigma
tire OF the defendant alone IS
sufficient, for he g the party TO be
charged There must be matuaIl5y
Of contract, nos necessarily nautuall5y
OF remedy This Is the rule at law
and IN equity it IS the same, so far
as the statute OF frauds IS concerned,
although as rule IN other cases
equity viii not grant relief N favor
Of one party If corresponding relief
could not be given against him II
favor of the other party See Reed,
St. of Frauds, Secs. 359 et seq, and
Browne. ST. Of Frauds, Secs. 365, 800,
and cases there cited
The case wilkinson y. Heaven
rich, So Mich 574) cited by counsel
"a holding that under q statute
similar TO ours the contract must be
signed by both parties does not ap-
pear to us 90 go so far Not one OF
the numerous authorities there cited
by the court supports this view; sew
eraI as recognized by thescourt sup,
port the contrary view; others were
decided under q statute which naade
the contract void mot merely IN
a,,tioaablel unless signed by the
vendor mot party to be chargedl
but the greater number We're based
upon want Of mu50al5ty OF contract
irrespective of the stat,ate Of frauds
Some of the language OF the court
it - true, would seem to indicate
that the court intended TO bold tina
the signature OF both parties wa'
requisite, bat from the language as
whole. from the actual facts OF th'
case. an! fr1r.a the Authorities chic Fl