The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-06-28
IMPORTANT POINTS
JulIeIilLT DECIDED
c g Tasrs 20

AAAN-|FE --AANN A-AAAA8A
this Territory the public has no right
70 inspect % examine or obtain infDr-
mzffcn from the stock books q prs-
vste corporations. such books being
open Tor the inspection Of the STOCK
holders and creditors -credffoFs O.
the corporation ard not Of individual
sfockhoiders
He backs up his opinion with deiiv-
erances o. the Supreme Court Of New
York and the Supreme Court u the
United States. When Winter endorsed
ard delivered the certificates Of stock
TO the PLEDGES witb the accompany
ing power OF sale. the legal title pass
Cd from him and became vested IN
them. The only act By which be
could have recovered the title was
payment Of the money due. As this
vas not performed during his life
time. the administrator took only the
title that Winter had az death. no
more and no less. and now stands II
his place. So far IS these actions are
concerned the parties are within the
exception Of the statute. the contrC-
versy being between the parties
thereto Even az this time. the ad-
the stock by payment OF the debts and
II this Is not done. the PLEDGES have
the right 10 sell the stock in the
manner provided by Law.
The answers to the questions sub
mitted are therefore In effect: T.
Phoebe Parmeiee and Bishop & Co
are the owners OF the stock described.
2-The administrator is not entitled
10 possession Of the stock and has not
the power to sell II for the equal ben.
FL OF all the creditors. 5.-The de-
PENDANTS are secured creditors.
Chief Justice Frear holds that the
main question was practically settled
in Hawaii By the Supreme Courts de-
elsion in Castle & Cooke VS.. Smith,
where an unrecorded transfer as
pledge was held valid as against an
assignee In bankruptcy of the trans
feror. an his opinion the PLEDGES in
these cases have priority over the
administrator to- the extent OF their
claims.
Justice Perry respectfully dissent
ing declares that the language of the
statute is clear and unambiguous. He
thinks that the present controversy is
action. therefore is outside of the ex-
ceptlon named in the statute. Par
entheticaily ne says: Whether. IL
Winter were alive. creditor who had
not attached or levied on the stock
could raise the same issue or be per
mitted to be heard thereon. is a ques-
ton which does not arise in this case
and upon which no opinion need be
expressed" Justice Perry holds the
decision in Castle & Cooke VS.. Smith
was not an adjudication contrary TO
his views. the question In these cases
having not been raised in that case.
IN conclusion be says:
If the transfer is valid. the title
to the stock is in the Pledge and the
administrator is powerless TO realize
on IL for the creditors: on the other
hand. II II is invalid the title is in
the administrator and he may proceed
TO divide the proceeds OF the stock
among the creditors. The latter are
directly concerned in the result I'm
der the circumstances Of this case.
| regard the issue as being between
the creditors and the Pledge and not
as being between the parties TO the
transfer
B. l. Marx and Hatch & Silliman
for plaintiff: Holmes & Stanley and
Kinney. Ballou & McClanahan for de-
PENDANTS.
No Relief Available.
Justice Perry is author of a unani-
nous opinion OF the Supreme Court.
deciding the equity suit OF Manoel
Comes VS.. Jose Cordeiro against the
plaintiff. In January. 1897, Comes OBJ
tanned lease of land from Queen
Dowager Kapiolani and In July the
same year sublet a portion of the
land TO Cordeiro. Il was understood
between them that at or before the ex-
piration Of Comes lease he should. IL
possible. obtain another lease and, in
that event. extend the suitcase to
Cordeiro on the same or proportion
ate terms 10 those OF the previous
transaction. Instead OF abiding be
this compact Cordeiro obtained a new
lease OF the whole property from the
kapiolani Estate for himself. The
Circuit Court decided on demurrer OF
defendant that the plaintiff was not
entitled 10 any. relief in a court OF
equity. The Supreme Court affirms
this decision. J. NJ. yivas and C. c.
Biting for complainant: Holmes &
Stanley for respondent.
Other judiciary Matters.
Yesterday afternoon argument
sprang up on the matter OF the courts
instructions TO the jury in the insur-
ance case OF Choy Look See VS.. Royal
Insurance Co. AS il was late the jur-
OTIS were excused. while the lawyers
talked. for the rest OF the session.
Judge Gear has signed decree Of
divorce for Marie Josephine Hall
AGAINST William A. Hail on the ground
81 adultery OF liheilee. J. 7. ne Bolt
Tor ltbellant: Cecil Brown for libellee.
A bond on defendants appeal has
been filed With J. A. Maguon principal
and Ching On surety. Ia the case OF
Jonathan Shaw VS.. c. W Booth.
Defendants bill OF costs amounting
10 SS7.se has been filed in the eject
ment suit % Fanny Stranch VS.. Cecil
Brown. decided in favor Of defendant
BY Jury.
IN the case Of Marconi's Wireless
Telegraph Co. Ltd. vs. Frederic ].
Cross, A. G. Kaulukou. clerk. is ap-
pointed BY Judge Gear 70 take the