The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-05-18

1864, that an assignment or aliens
tIon pssdsHts lits = not permitted to
sff-e, the right Of the other parties
unless the alienation 6Isables the
party Il, u performing the decree Of
the Court IN which case a supple
mental nill Is necessary 10 bring the
sssiSuee IN. And on page 1865
Where, however, the assignment
pSgdss!s .i.z, l. Of SO equitable interest,
and not a. 10 the case Of bankruptcy
/ by operation Of law. there does rot
seem 70 be any absolute necessity
for the assignee to be brought before
| the Court, nor does ii seem to be
mstsrisl whether the sssigues Is
| plaintiff or defendant to the bill. In
such s case, however unless the
a,i-Uee can be protected by the ordi-
nsry course Of petliIOulng for an
! order that the slIsuor may not take
the fluid be l. entitled q IN the suit
out Of Court, without notice to him,
| he, tle silence. may make himself
party by supplemental bill" 1t
would appear from this and subse-
Queut citati. u from this author that
the Court could direct g simple
order on petition that the alIenee
attend the Master under decree.
Ia Sedgwick V. Cleveland, Z Paige,
2S7, cited by defendants counsel, the
complainant hsd made sn assign
ment Of his interest TO 8 receiver
under an order made in another
cause and the chancellor held that
the complainant could not proceed
until his assignee was made party
by supplemental bill, and if the de
PENDANT wishes in such csse to have /.
the suit preceded with, he should /.
apply to toe Court for sn order that /
the sssiguee file supplemental bill. |
Here the transfer was not voluntary I
sud the Court held that as it was
considered TO be by operation Of law,
the receiver should file g bill IN his .
own name 10 continue the proceed .
ings for the benefit Of the trust he
was lnv-s Ell with.
4 fair iufereUce from this case
would Oz that where the transfer was
voluntary. - IN this case, supple
mental bill would not be necessary.
I = urgsd upon n by defeUdant's
counsel that q motion eau only be
made by g party 70 The cause. This
Is the general rule But 10 Csllen-
der Y r r. II OIio, s.. $50 the
C0Urr SAYS t5es the right OF making
and beng heard on his motion has
been very properly extended by
Courts Cd tbose having an interest II
the sui let matter though not
parties This, IN actions Of reFleyir,
and IN cases Of distri
button # money, 1t has been the
practice u entertain and hear
motions made By persons IN interest
though strangers to the record Aud
this office OF motion and Its extent,
IS thus established by usage in
Courts. l. clearly recognized by the
Civil Code Of Procedure We see
that the usage was Considered to be
before the statute was
made This case Is one of those |
1Dou which the following text IN Is
Ercyel. Of Law, p. sol Is founded :
A motion may be made by any ,
party to the record, and this right OF
making and being heard on their !
notion bs- been extended by the .
Courts TO those having an interest IN ,
he subject matter, though not .
parties" i
But IN the case before Us there was
more than c mere motion. 1t con ,
aimed allegations Of fact and xss in J
ne form Of petition and was sworn
%, sud tue oth-r party was served ;
With a notice Of It. We think that it :
Qliy served the purpose Of e supple
mental bill AMI would bind the !;
.-siguee by It, result =
The conclusion We have reached is !
hat at the stage IN which this case
5ss il was proper to procure the
institution OF c. A SpreckIes for :
hsus Spreckels IL the manner and /;
urn a II was done aud We find 10
God reason for departing from the 7
ecisi0u IL Watson '. Watson.
The sppeaI Is therefore dismissed. r
F. II Hatch for plaintiff; 4 5. !,
Isrtwell and c. ". Ashford for de- ;
sn6aU-
Honolulu. Nay 9. 1894.