The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-12

that the complicated there
cient facts forth support this allegation The principal
claim for the jurisdiction based the third ground
conceded by counsel the oral argument that if the
allegations of the bill showed the existence of duciary
confidential relation the parties the had jusdc
ton of the
"The principal difficulty to when equity will take uri
dcon of an accounting principal and agent The
relation of principal and agent without morethe relation
not being fduciay in its nature and no obstacle intervening
recovery LAWS insufficient enable principal
maintain the action against his agent But where
the relation that confidence reposed by the principal
his agent and the matters which accounting sought
peculiarly within the knowledge of the latter equity will
assume Jurisdiction (Poneroys Eq Jur Sec 1927, ~
The Supreme Court of New York said such accounting
when dcreed between parties standing confidential relation
and followed by proof of money property ntsted to the
agent throws upon the latter the burden of rendering account
and explanation, and requires him to show that his trust
duties have been performed and the of their perform
decree proceeds upon the ground that the de-
PENDANT stands attitude of agent dealing
with the money property of the other party insted In
confidential relation with interest which makes him quasi
trustee by of that relation knowing what the other
party know bound reveal him the entire truth
The equitable jurisdiction has always rested largely upon such
relation confidence involving the need of discovery and the
duty explanation and hence the burden of such explanation
and the proof truth fell in such upon the defendant
whose conduct questioned whenever accounting de-
creed, and required of him the extreme of good faith. Marin
q. Brooks 40 n Y 1916.
The Lord Chancellor in Foley Hill, also said: Now
principal and factor there question whatever that
that description of which alone has been referred the
argument support of the jurisdiction has always been held
be within jurisdiction of of equity because the party
partakes the character Partakng of the char
trustee the for the particular
bai
goods and him for the money The goods, how
the goods of the principal until the sale
takes place. and the the money received the money
remains the property of the principal SO it is with regard to
agent dealing with property he obtains interest him.
self subject beyond his remuneation he deal
ing throughout for another and though he is
according the strict technical meaning of the word he
quasi for that particular transaction for which he
engaged; and therefore in these of equity have
assumed jurisdiction House of Lords Cases. PIP 30 and So
The bill alleges that the plaintiff resident of London,
England defendants agents for Hawaiian
Islands and entrusted them large quantities of its goods for
sale commission with authority sell the and collect
the money therefore that the defendants have in their
unaccounted for large of plaintiffs money received
that said account still unpaid and unsettled; that the
knowledge relative the of sales and money due
peculiarly within the defendants knowledge,
The defendants counsel concede that if the defendants had
been authorized otherwise the proceeds OF
of the property that relation of and confidence would
have existed between the parties This additional authority
would only make clearer the relation of the parties but
would the least change the character of that relation
established by the allegations of the bill The plaintiff
have had high degree faith and confidence the business
integrity of the defendants when it made them its exclusive
agents for the sale of its goods in territory eight thousand
miles from its home office and entrusted them large quantities
of its property with full power bargain and sell the and
collect the money therefor The property delivered to the
defendants remained the property of the plaintiff and the money
when collected sales the money of the plaintiff The
only the defendants had in the the
There than the simple
debtor and creditor existing between these parties No
whether the facts show that the parties principal and
agent principal and factor the conclusion inevitable that