The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-05-18
OPINION OF The COURT BY JUDD, c. J

OPINION OF The COURT BY JUDD, c. J.
The plaintiffs bill 10 forecloSe a
lien upUn certain stock IN the Wsi
kapu Sugar Company, pledged by
defeuiaut g. a collateral security for
The payment II a pr0missOry note.
had been heard sui . decree Of sale
usde by the Court, which said
decree vas affirmed by this Court On
xp1-aL
For reasons which need not 80
De- here the sale was ordered post
po--d from time 10 time. the last
dA-s fixed for the sale being March
10 ls,t.
o. the Oh. March. c ) SDreckels
fled o sworn motion for leave to ao
pezr IS party plaintiff, alleging that
be had acquired ali the interest Of
Clsus SJzeckels (plsiuutf) IN this
ca1>s Of action sud decree existing
sDd made N this suit. setting the
suit cut particularly, and prayed
that be might b substituted as
plaintiff IN place OF said Claus
Sp-eckels snd that he might be al
lowed u be bidder al the sale, &c.
&c-. There was sls0 fled a consent
OF Claus SpreckeIs to the said substi-
tuition
The Circuit Judge allowed the
Substitution prayed for sni allowed
c A Spreckels 70 bid 81 the sale Of
a. ----E- --y3.-.- ., =, IL :, II 49,
he might exercise sll the powers
granted 10 the plaintiff in the de
erees heretofore made IN the said
suit Whereupou c. 4 Spreckels
lied 50 appearance Is plaintiff ana
named counsel (AIr. Hatch) TO pros
ecuts his suit
An sDpssI wss taken to this order
OF sdbsucutioe ard II l. urged by de-
PENDANT that complainant having
sold his Interest II the subject mat
ter Of the suit. his assignee cannot
Be allowed to De substituted for him
upou 8 mere motion. but that & SUP
elemental bill should De fled
The Circuit Judge allowed the |
Substitution ssk-d for upon the gu
thC-ity q Watson Y Watson. g Hsw |
- decided February 2, 1894 |
This wss g bill for partition which |
had been heard aud determined sud |
6 decree made ordering the ssle. but |
which hsd not been executed
h=suEhils some Of the parties plain
tiE had sid their interests a. Joint /
teuSn-s 70 s third party who came in
by motion sitter notice TO all the
parties. and the Court upheld his
position We see No good reason
for lot sliding by this decision. Il
Is true that the Court did not have
the sivsutage Of 8 very full srgu-
ueut upon this point, bat objection
va made sut u Vas considered and
authorities were cited t. the Court
upon the point
Il tie case before q every point
which could Be made 10 behalf OF /
defendant bss been made, aud the
csc bss proceeded slowly and De
Ebsrately 70 Its close, the actual sale
Of the pledge only remaining, and |
We cannot conceive Of any advantage !
4 b. gained by defendant by eUm
pelLlz the plaintiff GO proceed BY
Supplemental ball. unless the gaining
OF tine l. an advantage to him
Certainly 90 Injury would result to
tie defendant BY 81 owing the sub
strGuou q the assignee Of the
pledge % be eff-ctuated upon |
motion. he v1Bld be a. fully pro
tectei by RS al liiert1 in one method |
- procedure a. 10 tie other. We do
rot - suy reason 10 equity aud |
sod cluscisucs why he SD old sub
l-ct the sssiguee 0f the pledge TO the
q supplemental bill and !
tie delay sud d-dicuity 10 putting in
H. proofs sfresl sud 10 meeting the
ceisudaut's defense = second Tine.
The poderu equity practice i 10
favor OF simplicity and Of more |
speedy sHi less expensive methods
Of procedure. 10 the Gases cited by
defendant - d not ind that they |
meet The question whether motion
Would rot sus~rr the purpo-s Of
PGttIug before thu Court the fact q
tTausElsstou pen&eats .iis Of interest
n The suhi-ct matter Ct bill
The general doctrine i that II after
. suit has beeu Instituted any cir
occurs which, without
anaung THE suit, occasions al alters
t2o1 N the Interest Of Euy Of the
parties, or renders Il necessary that
Rev parties should be brought be
fore The Court, the proper method Of
o'ing / i y supplemental bill. ?
DAME ca. 1853
us taxi writer sars fnrthsr u |