The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-05-01

|
made in reference to anticipated legis
latIve action. Either the agreement i:
too uncertain to be contract in Its
failure TO express an essential term
or else it NAV he taken TO mean that
the rates were to be fixed by the
superintendent
| The agreement has an illusory ap-
pearanee. a promise that for certain
services such remuneration be made
as shall be deemed right gives no right
|! of action to the person who performed
the services. Taylor V. Brewer, l NJ.
& 5. 2e0, an action by a bankrupt s
assignees to recover compensation for
work done by the bankrupt. ElIenbor-
ough, c. j., regarded this IAN engage
ment accepted by the bankrupt on no
definite terms, but only in confidence
| thar if his labor deserved anything he
should be recompensed for it by the
defendants. This was throwing him
self upon the mercy of those with
whom he contracted and the same
thing does not unfrequently happen in
contracts with several of the depart
ments of government" Crosse, J., said
the defendants were to judge whether
any or what recompense was right"
merely an engagement of honor" Bal
ley, j., TT was to be in the breast of
| the committee (defendants) whether he
was to have anything and, if anything,
how much" In Bryant v Flight, M.
& w 514, plaintiff performed services
on an agreement that "the amount of
payment I am to receive I leave en-
tirely for you to determine" A ma
jority of the court thought that the
agreement implied that some amount
was to be paid and that 1.-The jury were
to ascertain how much the defendant,
acting bona nde, would, or ought, to
have awarded" Parke, B., considered
it "a mere honorary obligation on the
part of the defendant
THE circumstances of each case Cor
in written instrument the context)
must be looked to for the real meaning
of the parties: and I leave it to you
may we'll mean in particular circum-
stances Gas in various small matters it
VIGOROUSLY does), 7 expect what is
reasonable and usual. and / leave it to
You to find out what that u.s. or, T
expect what is reasonable, and am con-
tent to take your estimate assuming
that it will be made in good faith and
not illusory) as that of a reasonable
man. Pollock, Contracts, As.
If the defendants promise was 20 pay
for the use of the sewer whatever the
superintendent should consider the SER
vice to be reasonably worth there
would be a right Of action to recover
the reasonable value OF the service I'M
less the agreement was illegal or the
defendants were estopped from disput-
ing its legality, but we think the
promise means that the defendants
We're to pay the rates which the super
intendent should fix. Although the SUI
perintendent had no express statutory
authority to require payment for the
use of the sewer yet in the opinion
of a majority of the court his accep-
lance of promise to pay for its use
was within the general scope Of his
duties in the general supervision,
charge and control'' over public high
ways (Sec. 594 r. L.) and "superin-
tendence and management Of the inter-
nal improvements of the Territory
(see. 4S9 R. L.), when taken in con-
nection with the authority of the acts
appropriating money for the construc-
ton of the sewer under his direction.
In this view the agreement was not
illegal.
between agreements with public Of
fcers which are illegal because ultra
wires and those which are illegal be-
cause contrary to positive law, to mo-
raIity or to public policy. Pollock. sup
ra 234 If this was an illegal agree
ment 1t was because Of its tendency
ito interfere with the internal admins
tration Of the government" (Harri-
man, Contracts, Sec. 1851, by introduc-
ing "mercenaTy considerations to con-
troll the conduct of private individ-
ua1 public officiaD in a case where
such conduct ought to be Influenced
only by a regard fer the public well
fare" Hartman, supra. Sec. 181.
Many agreements, even if made with
out authority of law, clearly conduct
to public welfare. It is for the public
interest that streets be cleared of gar
bage and sprinkled with water and
public sewers used. Upon failure or
in the absence of appropriations for
these objects owners of property abut-
ting upon the streets and the public
are benefited by their ac-
complishment by means Of voluntary
and there can be no OBJ
lection to such contributions if made
promise by the superintendent
to ask for their reimbursement from |
the legislature. If there is no reason |
of public policy against voluntary con-
tributions to enable the government, |
when money provided oy the legisla- |
ture is not available, TO keep the |
streets III sanitary condition, there can /
be no objection on that ground to |
agreements to pay money for the pur-
pose or that the agreements should |
leave to the superintendent, who has |
charge of the streets, TO ascertain how l
much is required, assuming that he !;
would act honestly and impartially in |
apportioning it among the property |
owners who desire TO contribute To
hold that such agreements are Illegal /
because the law does not authorize t
them an1 therefore that they can be
repudiated by those who made them,
after receipt of benefits from expendi-
lures made in reliance upon ri.eir
agreements. does not accord with pop
aiar notions of justice or right, and in
bur opinion is not required by law.
The agreement is enforceable by the
4ha~> .