The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-02-01
The Suit Instituted in Hawaii
Has No Other End
in View.
COURT ASKED TO INTERFERE.
Argument in the Case of Claus Spreck.
els Against the Hawaiian CONNER
cial and Sugar Company.


neys.
The action is brought to restrain the de-
PENDANT from prosecuting an action in the
Hawaiian Islands where The company as
plaintiff seeks to compel Claus Spreckels
TO deed over to them some 5000 acres of
land, held by him, it is claimed, in trust
for the company.
Mr.. Delmas briefly recited the facts al
legged in the complaint filed in the Ha-
waiian Islands as follows:
Claus Spreckels, it is averred, about twenty
wears ago agreed with Herman SchusIer Fred
erick F. Low, William f. Babcock and Herman
Bendel, all residents of San Francisco, that he
would ascertain whether a large sugar planta-
ton could be established on the island OF Maui,
one OF the Hawaiian Islands, and, if so, that ne
would secure the necessary land and, with the
others, form corporation under the laws of
California for the purpose OF owning and ope-
rating the same.
That such corporation known as the
Hawaiian Commercial Company, the prede-
cessor OF the defendant here, was formed in
October, 1873.
That Claus Spreckels became the general
agent and manager OF that corporation and
was charged with the duty, therefore, OF act
ing with undivided devotion to its interests
without permitting his own personal advant-
age TO interfere with the duty which he owed
to the corporation.
That he purchased certain lands on the
Island OF Maui, known as the Ahupuaa of
Wailuku, which were needed by the corpora
ton, and paid for them with the money of the
corporation and that he now retains the legal
title IN his own name.
Though the subjeet-matter upon which the
trust operates be land ii is complete abuse of
terms 10 say that this is an action to recover
land.
The action is a personal one. The decree
operates not upon the land but upon the de-
fendant in person. The thing prayed for and
sought is not the land, but simply the con-
veyance OF the legal title.
The plaintiff asks for the discharge OF duty
which the defendant owes him. That duty is
an obligation which follows the defendant
whithersoeyer he goes and wheresoever he
abldes, and performance may be demanded
from him anywhere.
So purely personal is this action that in this
State, Notwithstanding the provisions of the
constitution, it may be brought in any county
where the defendant resides.
The only question arising, then, upon the
demurrer IS: Do the eyerments of the com
plant, nov here presented TO this court, bring
ms case within the scope OF equity jurispru-
The facts of course are admitted by the de-
murrer. What are they?
In the first place the parties are all residents
and citizens of California.
The plaintiff and the defendant, as we'll as
the defendants Russell ]. Wilson, Mountford
5. Wilson, Charles S. Wheeler, Rudolph Spreck-
els and b. j. Hoffacker, are, and were at the
time said action was instituted, citizens and
residents of the State of California.
The residence of all the parties who at any
corporations, the Hawaiian Commercial Com
pany and the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar
Company, who are now living, is in the State
Of California. Among these are Hermann
Bendel, Hermann Schussler, II. L. Dodge John
d. Spreckels, A. b. Spreckels, William Babcock
and Antoine Borel. In matters of purely per-
sonal obligations or duties the State always
affords protection under its own laws to its
own citizens.
citizen of this State may bring in the
courts of this State an action against a for
eigner found in this State to recover upon an
obligation accrued to him against said for
eigner in a foreign State. Thus, for instance,
citizen OF California may sue the Union Pa
eifc Company "a foreign corporalion) in the
courts of this State for personal injuries suf-
Tered by him in any place outside of Califor-
nis.
Proper tribunals to try questions arising
from personal obi gations be tY cen Caiifornians
are the tribunals of California.
The obligation in this case, if am. arose from
relations created and existing in California
between Californians and under California
laws.
The bill of complaint alleges that certain
agreements and contracts were entered into
between plaintiff and other persons, and the
bill is largely based upon the alleged duties
and obligations springing from said alleged
agreements and contracts. All OF SAID alleged
agreements and contracts, II made at all, were
made within the State OF California. The
obligations, If any. arising under them arise, if
at all, and must be ascertained and measured
by the laws of this State as interpreted by its
courts; and the plaintiff has clear legal and
equitable right to have said agreements and
contracts, II they exist, aseertained and meas
ured by this standard. Those laws, and the
construction which the courts of this State
have placed upon them, If defendant is per-
United TO proceed IN his action in the courts of
the Hawaiian Islands, will have to be proved
as facts before those courts, for they cannot
lake judicial cognizance thereof. To establish
by competent evidence in such a foreign and
distant tribunal the laws and decisions of this
State would be an undertaking involved in
great doubt and uncertainty, jeopardiZing the
laOa1 mr. q hia oh re of fbop laip
The bill of complaint alleges that certain
Aduciary relations existed between the plain
tif and the Hawaiian Commercial Company
and the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Com
tract and implied trusts arising from positions
alleged to have been occupied by plaintiff
plant is largely based upon the alleged duties
and obligations of the plaintiff springing from
those fiduciary relations The existence, ma
lure and extent of these fiduciary relations, if
any existed, are to be determined by the laws
of this State as interpreted by It's courts The
laws of the republic of Hawaii upon the mat
ters in contest are different from those OF this
state, ana II defendant is permit TIED to pro-
iced in his action in that republic, the plain
aff's rights under the laws of this State will be
lmnaired. If not wholly destroyed.
The nature of the contract made, the obliga-
lions assumed and the breach of those obi ga
tons must, whenever the case is tried, be de-
termined by the law of the place where the
is entered into.
Iign deed to a piece of land. Why should he
be dragged 1000 miles across the sea to do this
when all the parties in interest, the books and
tecords were here and could be produced in
sourt in twenty-four hours? Why should
these books and records be subjected twice TO
me dangers OF the sea? All the parties TO this
litigation are men of large affairs. Such a
Journey would necessarily mean great loss and
inconvenience to ali of them. The defendant
mere, who is plaintiff over there, willingly puts
plmself to this trouble and loss in order that
ne may Dnt his adversary still 0raater
trouble and cause him greater loss. / viii now
NOW your Honor line of authorities from \
ionftn cushing down, all setting their faces
igalnsI such Ubiquitous proceedings. The
courts say that no man may take such an ad-
vantage OF another as this seeking the courts
81 distant States or countries where the laws
IRE alnerent Or mayhap, especially favor their
Mr.. Delmas went on to say that the only
purpose OF bringing this suit in Hawaii
was to harass, vex and annoy the plaintiff
here. 1t was instigated by G. A. Spreckels
with the purpose of annoying his father,