The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-01


fe enee of such stock at such time. The agreement
ted Wv , tock of the market value of 200OE Had the
y ban used in place of the word market" that fact
FNa ~ 1+ come strength to defendants argument Tn
@ 1aiptif clearly would be taking chances with ref
' Lost to the actual value of the stock We must
' however that the words market value were used
and with knowledge of the fact that they have we'll
,;fcation and that at times they import something
.r..rt IN amount from 'face value" This language
, ,+rac, in our opinion dscloses intention on the
Rho nart thereto that the plaintiff should in the event
acion taking chances at all, not with refer
lue be reimbursed the amount of his loss-in other
o that the defendants, and not the plaintiff assumed
the existence of the stock. The agreement under
on bv reason of its language not one of the class
-4;b that in Baoler a. Aho, II Haw 357, belonged
further urged I'D that the Company could not possibly
d to guarantee the existence of stock of the market
QOOOf or of any stock at all because there con-
tr for such promise and such undertaking would
% he unbusnesslike and improbable. We fail perceive
e in this argument So far appears from the face of
declaration the Company contributed nothing to 'the part
hereby formed other than the right use in the Colony
tasmania certain formulas for the of alcoholism and
m and its proportional share of such small as was
~ to defray the expenses of entering upon the proposed
ss The plaintiff on the other hand, paid to 'the Com
QOO in cash for his interest in the partnership hereby
Is addition paying his share of the expenses just
kud In other words Harrison paid the substantial sum
hi order be permitted to join in the experiment about
curing alcoholism and narcotsm and in the profits
n vabe herefrom That the result of the experiment
success of the venture regarded at that time by the
MES themselves highly probematica is apparent
the terms of the agreement and not only is it not to be
% but it is natural to expect that the plaintiff before
e Il.
m to Tasmania do the actual work of the partnership
have obtained stipulation securing him the return of
money case of failure and the placing of the parties in
original position There is unfarness to the Company
h agreement if it voluntarily entered into The
ieaio for the promise ample
does appear that the plaintiff held any certificate
dg evidence of his share in "the partnership hereby
na and the inference is that he did not. There was
ling tangible then, which he could have rendered. It is
the declaration that the plaintiff became dissatisfied
condition of the business that he notified his partners
ect and that he made demand upon said partners that
the terms of paragraph OF said agreement they should
yer to him stock of the market value of Two Thousand
as 2OO0f) District other than Tasmania of the
Of operations of said partnership" This is sufficient
n that the stock demanded demanded in accordance
the terms of paragraph 4 to w.t. in exchange for his IN
pole interest in "the partnership hereby formed" 1t is in
an averment Of such demand accompanied by offer
He exchange his intangible interest. Plaintiff did all
By the terms of the contract he required to do in order
A0ne entitled to the relief demanded
also conended that the agreement and therefore the
aon ambiguous and uncertain inasmuch it is impos
ascertain therefrom what stock meant in Clause 4.
but not deciding that the language in this respect
asuOus that fact might prove serious obstacle to the
nance OF suit for specific performance praying for the
the stock itself; but such is the nature of this
e defendants have failed and refused to deliver any
ald the action is merely for the damages resulting
'l failure and refusal Whatever stock intended,
would be entitled to least nominal damages, since the
a' was not already held conditional upon the erst
e stock and since, therefore, there breach of the
knent
ner objection Is made that there is allegation In
"uOn that the attorneysnfact who signed the agree
sumo OF the defendants duly authorized so to do.
mat the allegation that the defendants naming them,
NJ" Tie agreement, is sufficient on demurrer
a O. these grounds of demurrer based the fact
psntfi' Gilmore and the persons composing 'the Com
' oy virtue of the agreement, partners in "he part
eOy 1ormed The contention is that the present
between partners, relating to partnership trans
~ Here has been final settlement or accounting be-
~