The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-03-22
Title to City Of Columbia is
Nov Clear.
so SAYS SUPREME COURT
Capt. Evans Can Now Handle the
Prize as He Likss-Soms Law
Points Brought Out.

Court handed down unanimous de-
cislon in the City Of Columbia case.
The decision. as was foretold IN the !
Advertiser Monday morning. confirmed
the sale made 20 Evans and revoked
the order for resale. Ii
BO,h Harry Evans aud his attorneys
were very jubilaut a; the outcome %
the case. Evans has already written
TO san Francisco firms AMI claims that
in a few days he will sell the vessel
at good price. II is his to do with as
he pleases. whether he decides to-
break it mp or sell Il as q stands or
start a private line OF his own.
When asked in regard 90 the report
I'd hui which intended 90 buy the
steamship and fl, her up As floating
Monte Carlo. Capt. Evans said ne did
not believe this could be carried out
Il Is known that a large Chinese firm
has made Mr.. Evans q very iiattcr.ng
offer for the vessel. IL they get u they /
Will take IL To- HongkOng. where they /
VIII have IL repaired. lney Will then |
run the boat between that poTt and Ho- |
nolu.u.
| me decision was the unanimous
opinion OF the Supreme Court. com
lposed OF Chief justice Judd. Justice
lWhi,ins and Judge Stanley. sitting in
lplaCe OF Justice FrelT. absent Follow
ling Is pare Of the decision:
The steamship City OF Columbia
lsold a auction by the MGrshll under
Ian order Cf sale OF the court % satisfy
a claim for wages by the officers and
men amounting to $4,000. IIe l1s,
ana best bid for her was $500 b. one
Henry l.. Evans. and the vessel was
knocked down To him. Before the
Marshal made return the ltbellants
. Iprc.ested against the confirmation OF
the sale. saying that the successful pid
was grossly inadequate. and that the
vessels value is much more. various
lafFfdavits were presented. showing that
certain parties were willing upon re-
sale to make open .ng bids q $4,000. The
Circuit Judge declined to- confirm the
sale and ordered a resale. His juris-
d elton TO do so was contested by the
. successful bidder. claiming that the
sale was good and passed the title 20
1.-THE purchaser without confirmation.
We think this contention ts unSound.
II was judicial sale and required con
hrmatiCn no; only rs regards the ques-
ltion of expenses and cost and distrsbu-
ton OF the assets. but whc her the sale
was properly conducted.
The amount OF the sale 90 Evans
would not cover the AarSh1Is CN-
Ipensas and costs IN the case OF the YES
sci. and OF course would realize moth
. ing to the libellants. who are semen
. land wards OF the Cuur'.. and We were
Therefore anxious 20 look into the mat
ter closely In order TO afford them some
relief. IL possible. There is but lttlS
doubt that the general rule governing
the confirmation OF a judicial sale Is
that the sale IL regular will be con
iirmed unless the pr.Ce obtained - -
grossly inadequate TO The value OF th'
res as to shock the conscience -
the Court and be prcsumptive cvttcnc,
Of fraud. We find that there was n,
j irregular.ty in the sale and the onl!
!, ground upon which the sale - attIcNe.
J is that OF gross inadSQuIcy. Upon tn
evidence we are satisfied that the cN
pense OF repairing the vessel so rs q
make her seaworthy and capable Of he
ing insured would be too great 90 90
I ford any reasonable expectation that
purchaser in the Honolulu m1rSF
n would undertake the enterprise.
The reports OF experts IN regard q
the value OF the vessel a &C. stands
and OF the material 10 g We're br1Ss
rp. are quoted At length. The decision
states that how much. it any. prof
could be realized from a sale ct sue
articles rs could only be removed b
breaking up the vessel. Is purely mat
d ter OF conjecture.
- In conclusion:
we feel Obliged. in view 90 che ev
Idence adduced. 10 hold tha. the VIlu
4 y
purchaser Is net so grossly inIdsQu1s
II, as 10 authorize a resale. and therefor
J remit the cause 10 the Circuit jude
below with. direction 90 C1ahrm p
sale
The following points ot law are e
tabi.shed by the decision IN tlts I'm
Gus case:
|, The practice OF courts Cf chIurCT
and admiralty requires that the s1
ordered be- confirmed before the pa
chaser has a right 20 the property.
"A successful bidder az % judict
sale has right 20 be heard In the ma
s. ter OF the confirmation thereof
-. a judicial sale II regular wiU
confirmed unless the price obtained
so grossly inadequate to the value
the res rs 10 shock the conscience
the Court and afford presumptivs -
dence OF fraud"
The attorneys were g. y. Davis.
Il \. Dickey and \. l.. c. Atkinson Z
~ the purchaser: Kinney. B1llOl 4 "
Clanahan for the libellants.
The parties who brought the suit q
very much disappointed over the q
cision. II Is said that W. J Smith. 6
principal libellanS Will teSe other .
ton. but in what manner j. not Enow
Smith was navigating officer OF