The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-05-16
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, c. J.

OPINION OF THE COURT By JUDD, c. J.
The plaintiffs bill TO foreclose a
lien upon certain stock in the Wal
kapu Sugar Company, pledged by
defendant as collateral security for
the payment of a promissory note,
had been heard and decree of sale
made by the Court, which said
decree was affirmed by this Court on
appeal.
For reasons which need not ap-
pear here the sale was ordered post
poned from time to time. the last
date fixed for the sale being March
10 last
On the 9Th, March, @ A Spreckels
fled a sworn motion for leave to ap-
pear as party plaintiff, alleging that
he had acquired all the interest OF
Claus Spreckels (plaintiff1 In this
cause of action and decree existing
and made In this suit, setting the
suit out particularly, and prayed
that he might be substituted rs
plaintiff In place of said Claus
Spreckels and that he might be al
lowed to be bidder at the sale, DC,
&c, There was also filed a consent
OF Claus Spreckels to the said substi
tuition.
The Circuit Judge allowed the
substitution prayed for and allowed
G. a. Spreckels to bid at the sale of
the stock ordered to be sold and that
he might exercise all the powers
granted to the plaintiff In the de-
crees heretofore made In the said
suit Whereupon G. A Spreckels
filed an appearance as plaintiff and
named counsel AIR. Hatch) to pros
ecute his suit.
An appeal was taken to this order
of substitution and it is urged by de- |
PENDANT that complainant having |
sold his interest In the subject mat |
ter of the suit, his assignee cannot /
be allowed to be substituted for him
upon a mere motion, but that sup
Elemental bill should be fled.
The Circuit Judge allowed the
substitution asked for upon the au-
thority of Watson v. Watson, 8 Haw.
February 2, 1884,
This was a bill for partition which
had been heard and determined and
a decree made ordering the sale, bat
which had not been executed.
Meanwhile some of the parties plain
tiff had sold their interests as joint
tenants to third party who came In
by motion after notice to all the
parties, and the Court upheld his
position. We see no good reason
for not abiding by this decision It
is true that the Court did not have
the advantage of very full argu-
ment upon this point, but objection
was made and It was considered and
were cited to the Court
upon the point
In the case before Us every point
which could be made IN behalf Of
defendant has been made. and the
case has proceeded slowly and de
Iiberately to its close, the actual sale
Of the pledge only remaining, and
we cannot conceive OF any advantage
10 be gained by defendant by com
pellibg the plaintiff to proceed by
supplemental bill, unless the gaining
Of time Is al advantage to him.
Certainly no injury would result TO
the defendant by allowing the sub
stitution OF the assignee OF the
pledge to be effeetuated upon
motion. he wonld be as fully pro
sected by res adj3dfoGta IN one method
1f procedure as IN the other. We do
not ee any reason IN equity and
good conscience why he should sub
Jet the assignee of the pledge 70 the
expense of a supplemental bill and
the delay and difficulty IN putting In
his proofs afresh and IN meeting the
defense second time
The modern equity practice Is IN
,avor Of simplicity and OF more .
speedy and less expensive methods ,
IF procedure. In the cases cited by ]
defendant We do not find that they
meet The question whether q motion
would not answer the purpose OF
putting before the Court the fact Of :
pendsate lite OF interest +
d the subject matter OF bill. :
The general doctrine Is that IL after I
suit has been instituted any cir- {
umstauce occurs which, without i
hating the suit, occaeioDs sn altera- G
ion In the interest 81 aDy q tie ,
PARTIES, or renders il necessary that
lew parties should be brought be
ore the Court. The proper method of
Icing il Is by Supplemental bill Z
Daniel ca 1868.
This text writer saye further, ?. q