The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-07-18

Bankruptcy for the pose of allow
ing amendments 10 the petition TO
make it correspond with the facts and
the order.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, CD.
Bankruptcy was adju iged in this
case by Circuit Judge Whiting who
found "that +. O. Y Alai, Alsi Sr.,
and Lam Pun, comprising the copart-
nership firm of TAI WO Chan Com
pany have become bankrupt" etc,
and that Leong Ming and Lum Kan,
petitioned as codefendaDts herein
are not partners III said firm of Tai
Wo Chan Company, and as to the
said Leong Ming and Lum Kan said
petition is dismissed, and, says the
Court: Il do further adjudge L. q. Y.
Alai, Alai ST., and Lam Pun, COM
prising the firm of Tai Wo Chan Com
pany, bankrupt accordingly"
An appeal was taken from this judg-
ment by II. O. Y, Alai aud Alai to this
Court.
The original petition was against
"Tai Wo Chan Company, composed
of Tai Wo Chan and others, au uu-
registered Chinese mercantile firm
doing business as shoemakers at No.
SO Nuuanu street, Honolulu On the
uay tn6 dSheh tuu
obtained leave to file an amended
petition, describing the debtors pro-
ceeded against as "Tai Wo Chan Com
pany, an unregistered Chinese mer-
camille firm and copartnership, COM
posed of Il. O. Y. Alai alias Tai WO
Chan, Leong Ming, Lum Kan and All
Lai, and doing business as shoe makers
and tailors at No. SO Nuuanu street in
Honolulu"
By statute, on page $40 Compiled
Laws, the members of every copart-
nership are required to be registered
in the Interior Office, in default of
which each member of such unregis-
tered firm may be held liable for pa t.
Dership debts, and sued severally
therefor. From the evidence adduced
the Circuit Judge found that Leong
Ming and Lun Kan were not part
ners, but that L. q Y. Alai, Alai and
one Lam Pun constituted the partner
ship. We have carefully reviewed the
varying the finding made by the
Bankruptcy Court. The firm not
being registered, the petitioners were
Obliged TO set out as partners those
whom they considered to be such on
such information as they had. The
alleged partners, the Alais Senior and
Junior, show, to our satisfaction, that
Leong Ming Tor Ling had sold out
from the firm of Tai Wo Chan Com
paDy. Lum Kan does not seem to
have ever been one of this firm.
These witnesses insist that only T.
@. Y. Alai and Lam Pun, now in
China, compose the firm. The full
name of the younger L. O Y. Alai is
Tong Quong zee Alai ana is comm IN
ly known by the natives as Alai.
Without reciting the evidence in de-
tail we find that it is satisfactorily
proved that Alai, senior, is a member
OF the firm. 1t is very strong evidence
his taking personally to the petition
ing creditors list of the firms assets
and liabilities ION demand by the
petitioning creditors for an exhibit Of
their affairs) which contained an ite n
among the assets ''stOck OF Alai, tail
or, $1,000" Another list had been
taken to the petitinning
creditors, containing the items, 'stOck /
of Alai, tailor, $1,000. The shop
occupied Ivy this firm had a shoe I
making business down stairs and !
u taIlor's Shop upstairs, and /
the goods of both depa tments were |
for sale downstairs, there be- /
ing only one sign on the shop-"Tai /
Wo Chan Company"
We think tie Bankruptcy Court !
was fully justified in holding as it .
did. There was no occasion Ia dis |
miss the petition on the evidence !
showing a variance.
The failure to personally serve Lam |
Pan, who is said TO be in China, has /
only the effect to exempt his private /
property, if any he has, from liability |
for the firms debts. 1t does not abate |!
the proceedings against the firm as !
sets.
As to the indemnity bond by petit !
tioning creditors being bad because |
given TO the de btor firm and not TO the |
Individuals composing it, we do not |!
find that any objection to the bond was |
made in the Court of first instance, /
and so do not consider it here. Such !
a bond was held good in De Caussey |
VS.. Bailey, 81 Tex. go.
Counsel for the respondents made (
objection in this Court that the petI- !
ton shows that the petitionipg credi- !
tors We're II. w. McChe>ney, j. NJ. |
and +. w. McChesney, |
composing the firm of McChesney " |
Sons, and the evidence only shows |
that +. w. McChesney and j Nj Nc /
Cnesney were partners, there being
10 evidence that II. w. McCnesney is /
a member of the firm. This objection /
10 the variance b. tween the pleadiugS !
and pro was not made III the Court I
below and il Is made for tine first time {
in this Court, on appeal. The order of |
the Court below adjudging the debtors !
to be bankrupt would imply that the
of the petitiOniug credi- !,