The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-10-30
TWO NOT THE
SAME As EIGHT
Boston Case in LoWrie Versus
Castle Not Identical With
Action Here.

| suit brought by William J. Lowrie
against H. P. Baldwin ct al. was made
yesterday when memoranda for the
plaintiff on the defendants application
for an order staying proceedings until
the Massachusetts court has decided
the action brought there was filed.
! The memoranda cites a host of author
| tiles against the order for a stay of
Free ceilings, arguing that the case in
the Hawaiian courts and that in Bos-
| ton are different actions.
Tie Boston action states ether causes
OF action besides those set out in The
cr1II laint filed here. There are five
counts there and only three here.
| Moreover, there are no two counts
that are identical. The plaintiff
quotes to the effect that in ordinary
actions a suit, pending in one state
cannot be pleaded in abatement or in
bar of another suit in different state,
but that both may proceed until judg-
ment is rendered in one of such suits,
when it may be set up in bar of the
further maintenance of the other.
Objection also is taken to the claim
that the defendants in both actions are
the same, there being only James B.
and w. r. Castle named in the Boston
action and six others in the action
here. 1.-TWO are not the same as
eight" is the automatic summing up
of this phase of the argument.
1.-The plaintiff selected the Massa-
chusetts forum, because it is a con-
venient one for him." states the memo
randa. He brought the action here,
because certain defendants whom he
endeavored to serve there procured an
order setting aside the service upon
them, and he wishes to save his rights
against these defendants, and also
against the S. N. Castle Estate, Lin
tied, and perhaps some other persons
if he finds that they may be made par
ty defendants"
JUDGE DOLE REVERSES HIM
SELF.
Judge Dole yesterday morning rem
dered a decision in the case of Jacob
B. Laweliilii versus George U. Hind
and James Rolph Jr., doing business
under the firm name of Hind, Rolph
& Co., in which he reverses a decision |
of his own in a former case and |
acknowledges that mature considera- |
ton has convinced him of the error |
of his former judgment. The action is |
a case in admiralty, in which the
papers were served on j. S. Low and |
Hind, Rolph & Co. as agents. 1t was /
contended that the service should be
set aside on the grounds that neither
Low nor Hind. Rolph & Co. were the
proper parties to serve.
A portion of the decision says:
I'm America, while there is ample
provision for service of process on the
agents of absent corporations, the
ocal laws generally requiring from
he corporations the nomination of
gents on whom process may be served
yet there are no presidents that / have
)een able to find for similar service on
agents of absent partnerships. On
he other hand, the English practice
has developed a rule that where an
lbsent company has brought itself
within the jurisdiction of the local
,ourts, by trading on it's soil and under
protection of its laws, the head officer
IT manager of such business within
he jurisdiction might be served with
process.
1.-The libellees were doing business
n Honolulu and at San Francisco, and
10Th partners resided in San Francis
o. Their Honolulu house is conducted
" Mr.. J. S. Low, who was recognized
" them as their attorney in fact. {
he ship which occasioned the injury
0 libellant was out of the jurisdiction, |
nd it became, supposedly, necessary
or the libellant to bring his action
4 personan1. If the rule is followed /
hat there can be no service on the 8
gent or manager of a branch house
firm in the absence of the part 7
ers, it would appear that this libeilant !
yould be deprived Of his right to pros ,
cute his case. Although this court is
ot required to follow the local rules !
practice in similar proceedings, yet, .
nder the laws referred to and rule of :
.dmiralty No. 46, it is authorized and
within the limits of the 7
and the rules of Admiralty 7
lade by the Supreme Court, to regu- :
tie it's "own practice as may be nee
assary or convenient for the advance !,
lent of justice and the prevention of Z
elays in proceedings. Sec. 918 r. S. +
:. S.
Il therefore base the decision in this
latter on the ground of the necessity y
lat some reasonable service shall be I
ossible for the furtherance of justice +,
nd for the prevention of delay, and
lat Ii shall not be said that any per- Z
ms, either singly or as partners, may !.
, a maritime business in this coun- +
V and escape legal responsibility by E.
wing out of the jurisdiction of the Il
ederal Court.
with the opportunity of more ex- ~
austive study of the point raised by n
lie motion, which the rehearing has y
ven, l do not hesitate, in accordance q
it'll the foregoing considerations to
everse the former decision on this Z,
,int, but reaffirming such decision as !:
the. other points raised by the libel a
e's briefs. The motion to set aside n
lie service of summons is oVerruled.
The syllabus is as follows: Y
Practice Authority of district court {
regulate its own practice. In cases n
IT provided for by the Admiralty
,,1a 10 il