The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1902-01-03
GROSSMAN BROS. WIN SUIT.
Supreme Court SEtaiRS Fourth Circuit In
Mortgage Case Appealed BY H.
H3GNHId & Company.

| -heneTsr that option was exercised
was done By the resolution OF
red in evidence. the act was n
usive and inquir into It's reason
| p purpose was forec'Osed. That VI
n the Law there was no eYid re
hat would sustei1 thu finding Ct Ia
ldge in favor OF tHe defendants.
Sound in Part.
THIS cont ntiou is sound in p7rt
least. TIL law was cons dersd
18th care and Earning in the two
lses cited but its p oper app icat O.
the facts II thn case PIT bar is not.
rec from difficulty. The Rawlf7e
-s7 wps c7a Of employment TIL
9u-t said n the Porter case: "The
/ resent contract Is primarily a lease. 8"
There is a material difference b
-ween the Rawlins and Porter ca G .
ID tho cas- n bar This f. a COZ
'-act for mortgage Those were both
before Z court OF law. while this is BE-
ore a court Of equiv. Tho facts in
n Sc cases were submitted to a in
for determination while ia this the
acts and the law were determined
ny the Judge. However much differ
7rce there NAV be n the character
# the cases the court will be guided
by the same principles in this case
as controlled the court in reaching
conclusion in those
Contention Is Not Sound.
The question presented for our de-
termination is. d~es the evidence sus-
tan the finding of the judge.
1t is commended by the appellant
that admitting that its President and
Directors may have been dissatisfied
with the venture with the defendants
and with the coffee proposition in
general that such opinions were not
the opinions of the corporation of H
Hackfeld & Company; that the cn'y
way the corporation Sould express an
opinion was by resolution of its
Board OF Directors; that She only ex-
preston from the corporation was
that contained in the resolution de-
claring its dissstivfaction and that
there was absolutely no evidence 10
support the finding and decree appeal
ed from.
This contention is not sound. a
corporation can oaly act by and
thorugh its officers and agents.
/ Said Coffee Was Failure.
Ii is in evidence that the President
OF the plainuf's corporation said to
che of the defendants prior to the
commencement OF the suit that the
coffee proposition was a failure; that
lie had no confidence at all In it and
L" apparently meaning the plaintiff
have OF was going to shut down and
was going to stop all coffee invest
ments and get right out OF il; thar
the plaintiff formerly had extensive
interests in coffee plantations in the
Olaa lands and had closed out or dis
posed of all except their interest with
the defendants and that the paint Il
at no time offered any suggestions to
the defendant that they change OF
improve their method of cultivation
that in June. 1900. the plaintiffs Pres
ident said TO one OF the defendants:
Dr.. Grossman. your place has had 6
better show than anv plcae in the isl-
andS;" that the resolution declaring
the plaintiffs dissatisfaction with the
cultivation of coffee also declared
that there had been breach Ct two
other covenants. /. G. "a a failure t.
keep proper books OF account and (2)
failure TO purchase goods OF IL
Hackteld & Company.
A Failure Of Proof.
1t appears further that there was
a failure OF procf on these last two
alleged breaches of covenant and. that
they were abandoned at the trial be-
low. The Law placed on the plainti"
the burden of proof In this il FIJI
ed. We find that the evidence vas
ample to sustain the finding Of the
trial iudse
The decree appealed from is affirm
"A
The decision IS sigoed hv Chief
'-etice Frssr ard Associate Justices
Galbraith aud Perry.
New Trial Ordered.
A decision was also rendered BY
he Supreme Court In the case OF Z
paakiki against B. owaanui excep
ioas from the Fourth Circuit. sub
niited December ;. 1891
The syllabus OF the opinion. which
: unanimous and written by Asso-
late Justice Gslhraith. is as follows:
An exception 20 the ru'ing OF trial
oaFt sustaining an objection TO the
Omission Of relevant and comnsten.
sstlnony when not clearly harmless
'rror. should be a new trial ordered !
A. Magoon and T. J. Dillen cor i
'laiatlf; Smith & Parsons for Is
cadant.
Before Humphreys Today.
The following msusrs viii be taSsr
y TODAY before Judge Humphrey
chambers; Guardianship OF LA
g. masters report: estate OF l.. X
'aiaalani. administration. estate of
'saes Robinson. masters report: IA
~lepuna against McCandless. pes:
!