The San Francisco call., 1896-03-13

erick Low, William F. Babcock and Hermann
Bendel, all of San Francisco, to establish
large sugar plantation on the aforesaid lsland
OF Maui, and to secure the necessary land and
water supply, and to form corporation under
the laws OF California to own and to operate
such plantation. and that about september
80. 1878, such corporation was formed by said
persons, under the name of Hawallan Com
mercial Company, after said Claus Spreekeis
nad obtained, in pursuance OF the aloresaia fsad
agreement, certain grants and leases OF lano,
water franchises and contracts Tor the use anu
benefit of said plantation
The Directors Resolution Of 1878.
(bl That about October "a, 1873, said Claus
Spreckels executed q deed OF trust declaring
that he held all OF the property, deeds. grants,
leases, con tracts and franchises of, concerning,
and connected with said plantation, TO the
use and for the benefit of said company, 10 De
conveyed to it upon demand.
(c) That on October S, 1878, the directors oI
said company adopted resolution authorlzlng
said Claus SpreckeIs to lease, sell or exchshge
any OF said property upon such terms ana IN
such manner as he might deem best, IN MS
own name and as his own act. and proVlding
that said company would accept from him as
and for full and complete performance OF the
obligations imposed on him by said deed OF
trust so much of the property described
therein might remain In his hanos wheh
demand was made upon him Tor transfer,
together with all proceeds received py MIN LOT
any disposition of the property in said instru-
ment describes
Sir Thousand Acres in Dispute
(d) That said Claus Spreckels was at all
times the owner of majority OF the stock OF
said companT and the managing director
thereof and had the entire direction and con-
troll OF the affairs thereof, and continued 10 ac
qure in his own name at the expense OF said
company, and for its use and beneht, certain
other leases and grants OF lands, rlghtS OF way
and water on the island of Maui, including
the aforesaid 5000 acres OF land in dispute
(e) That on March 81, 1882 new corpora
ton was formed under the laws OF California,
under the name of the Hawaiian Commercial
and Sugar Company, and the new company
duly purchased all the assets OF the old COM
pany, and received an assignment OF tne aloTe-
~ That bv deeds of September 25, 1882, and
February 27, 1883, said Claus Spreckels pre-
tended to convey, to the new company "ali
and singular the lands, tenements, heredlta-
ments, rights liberties. franchises, powers and
authorities then vested in or acquired by
him, but in fact he failed to convey the atore-
said 5000 acres OF land.
What Claus Spreckels Refused to Do.
(1l That in 1894 it was ascert tanned for the
first time that said Claus Spreckels had failed
to convey TO the said Hawaiian Commercial
and Sugar Company the aforesaid 5000 acres OF
land and had failed TO account for and pay over
TO said company the moneys he had received
therefrom. Thereupon demand was duly
made upon him that he should so convey said
land and account to said company and pay
over said moneys, all OF which he then refused
and ever since has refused to do
The plaintiff then proceeds to deny specif
cally all of the allegations in the company's S
complaint in its Hawaiian suit concerning the
aforesaid 5000 acres of land, and he sets forth
all the circumstances under which he ac-
quired title to said land and claims that he Is
entitled to hold the same in his own name and
to and for his own use, together with all
moneys received therefrom as rents or profits
or otherwise.
allegation as to Right and Title.
And plaintiff further alleges that in January,
1894, he sold his stock and all his interest in
said Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Com
pany to C, a. Spreckels, and said G. A. Spreck-
els has ever since had the controlling interest
in said company; and that the directors of
said company ever since have been named by
him, and have in every way acted in subordl-
nation to his wishes and directions, and have
exercised but nominal functions, and have in
fact, if not in law, delegated and surrendered
all their powers and the whole management
OF the affairs of said company to c. A. Spreck-
els. And that said c. A. Spreckels from 1873
to 1898 was perfectly familiar with all the
affairs OF plaintiff, and with every TACT and
circumstance attending the acquisition by
plaintiff OF the title in fee to the aforesaid six
thousand acres of land, and that he has always
well known that said company has never had
any right or title TO said land either in law or
in equity, and that said c. A. Spreckels 1nsti-
gated and caused the. board OF directors OF said
company to authorize and direct the institu-
ton and prosecution OF the aforesaid action
against plaintiff in the courts of the Hawaiian
Islands in pursuance of a plan to harass and
annoy plaintiff and to place him al a disad-
such action.
Defendants Demur'to the Action.
In support OF their demurrer the defendants
most seriously urge as one point that section
1923, subdivision l of our Civil Code is a bar
to plaintiff S action.
The subdivision OF the section cited reads:
"3423. An injunction cannot be granted.
81. To stay judicial proceeding pending at
the commencement of the action in which the
injunction is demanded, unless such restraint
is necessary to prevent a multiplicity OF such
proceedings
In response to this point plaintiff contends
that the Legislature intended in this provision
merely to declare that one court shall not
directly stay, by injunction, the official action
of another court of coordinate jurisdiction,
and not that court may not by injunction
restrain the personal act of party to the ex-
tent ofcommanding him TO proceed no further
with his suit.
authority Of the Court in Foreign Lands.
To sustain this distinction plaintiff refers to
the following language in ''Story's Equity
Jurisprudence vol 2, section 999.)
It has sometimes been made question whether
courts of equity have authority to stay proceed
ings in the courts of foreign countries. Nothing
can be clearer than the proposition that the courts
of one country cannot exercise any control or
experimenting authority over those OF another
country. The independence, equality and SOW
erignty of every country would repudiate any such
interference inconsistent with its supremacy
within its own territorial domains. But although
the courts of country have authority to stay
proceedings in the courts OF another, they have
und0ubted authority TO contrOi all persons ana
things within their own territorial limits. When,
therefore. both parties to suit in foreign coun-
try are resident within the territorial limits of
other country, the courts of equity in the latter
may act in personam upon those parties and direct
them by Injunction TO proceed no further in such
suit. In sucn case these courts act upon ac
knowedged principles of public law in regard TO
Jurisdiction They do not pretend TO direct con-
troll the foreign court, but without regard to the
situation the subject matter of the dispute they
consider the equities between the parties and de-
cree in personam according to those equities. and
enforce obedience to their decree by process in per
sonam. Hence it is the known habit of courts of
equity to relieve in cases of contracts and other
matters respecting lands situated in foreign coun-
tries.
Jurisdiction to Restrain by Injunction.
The case of Engel VS.. Scheuerman, decided
III 1869 by the Supreme Court OF Georgia (40
Ga, 211) is also cited. The court there says:
This bill is not filed for the purpose of restrain
ing the proceedings of the court of New York; the
OF this state have jurisdiction to do that,
would the courts OF this state have Jurisdlc-
tion to enjon the enforcement of judgment OBJ
tanned in the courts of New York between citi-
zens of that State resident there The question
here is. whether court of chancery in this state
has jurisdiction to restrain the personal action OF
a defendant so far to prohibit him from enforc-
ing the collection of the judgment obtained in the
courts of New York according to the facts OF this
case. There is clear distinction as TO the power
and authority of court of equity in this State TO
restrain by Injunction the proceedings of a court
in another State and the power and authority OF
such court restain by Injunction the personal
action OF citizen of this State. In the one
court of equity in this State has no jurisdiction In
the other il has Jurisdiction to restrain by lnlunc
ton the personal action OF the defendant mSeif