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

of these reasons exist therefore the rule itself
does apply, in the bar The plaintiff any
making himself party defendants he is suing any
partnership of which he member The recovery which he
seeks solely Company members and not from
the partnership hereby formed He has the
Company member its property Except enforce
ment of the present of acon although members are
his partners the partnership hereby formed If he re-
Judgment against the Company any all Of its
members property his which he any interest will
become liable for the satisfaction of that judgment.
The allegation concerning accounting contained in the
declaration really unnecessary The of dis
nct and does nvoye consideration of the part
nership accounts dealings
We believe that where the cause of action is
distinct from the partnership accounts and does involve
their consideration require their examination
will lie thereon between the partners that an
lies individual and personal between part
and is immatea whether such relate the
partnership affairs wholly distinct therefrom and that
IF partners by express agreement separate distinct
from the partnership dealings and expressly agrees pay
the other specific for that assumps will lie that
contract although the from their partnership deal
ngs" Us Encycl Pl Pr, 1884, 1043 1914 and 1048)
These partners successfully launch he partnership
hereby formed entered preliminary whereby
certain of them agreed to purchase the plaintiffs interest in the
upon the happening of certain contingency The
transaction purely between the individuals not their
capacity of partners Gilmore not way concerned
the the purchase of Harson interest and Har
likewise was way in agreement to
the purchase of Gmore 1t just though only
of the partners had agreed buy Gilmore for specific sum,
and another buy Harrison for another specific
eff by the articles continuing partner is dissolution to
pay the retiring partner specified the latter may
law though adjustment of the accounts he would be
debtor the rm.2 Bates Partnership $780, See also
Ib., ssS74, $50.
$50 there may be special bargains between the partners by
which particular transactions insulated and separated from
the winding up; and single partner be substituted in place of
the firm. Such the of partner retiring and
selling out his interest the continuing partners, who assume
the debts The retiring partner them law for the pur
chase price of his interest which they had agreed for
the amount of any debthe has had to pay."-Ib. 1891
he fact that the partnership affairs have been adjusted
though adjustment thereof would show balance due
the defendant from the plaintiff mpedment to the main
of this action The agreement is for the payment
certain contingency of specific of by party
the other of dissolution of the partnership The
party who becomes liable under the contract pay such money
the debtor of the other party and the latter maintain
action against him therefor without regard to the partnership
relations formerly existing between them the state of their
partnership accoun-Read Merritt Al Wis. 1852, 353. See
also Edens o. Williams Ill 252 Wetherbee Potter, 80
Mass. $685. Eds0ards o. Remington, 81 Wis. 343.
The allegation of the declaration this subject hat
the said and the rendition of the judgment
therein hereinafter mentioned the said Court Court of
Record said City, having jurisdiction the parties plaintiff
and defendant and also of the subject matter in and of the said
action" This opinion, sufficient It allegation of
facts and of law To be BRIEF summarized state
ment the facts but the evidence showing those facts need
be set out declaration The governing the New
Zealand merely of such evidence and will have to
proved the trial in the other fact
appears the face of the declaration that the present de-
PENDANTS were the time of the execution of the agreement
and are of Honolulu although also appears de-
PENDANT Abes was in the date here first mentioned
It is argued that the that all of the present defend
ants residents of Honolulu and out of the jurisdiction OF
the New Zealand the time of the institution of the action
rendition of the Judgment and that therefore the de
caraton expressly shows that the doctrine of Penoer
Ne 95 o. S. 49, the judgment is invalid for lack of risdc
ton by in that action the of those who
are defendants this action 1t Is decide this
time whether or not Zealand could have acquired
Jurisdiction over defendants absent by constructive
vice by publication for may be that they present. and
bat direct service was made that they voluntarily submitted