Case: G. S. WRIGHT vs. HAWAIIAN STEAM NAVIGATION CO.
Abbreviation: Wright v. Hawaiian Steam Navigation Co.
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1856-04
Docket Number: 
Citation: 1 Haw. 238
Volume: 1
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Parties: G. S. WRIGHT vs. HAWAIIAN STEAM NAVIGATION CO.
Pages: 238–238

G. S. WRIGHT vs. HAWAIIAN STEAM NAVIGATION CO.
5he court refused a motion for judgment by default, upon a promissory note, made by a party as agent of a joint stock company, unless it was shown that he had authority to bind the company by his note.
This was a motion for a judgment by default, on a promissory note for $20,000, given by J. T. Wright, as Agent of the Hawaiian Steam Navigation Company, to the plaintiff, his brother.
Messrs. Bates, Montgomery and Harris appeared on behalf of A. G. Jones and other stock holders of the company in opposition to the motion, alleging by affidavit, that J. T. Wright was never the duly appointed agent of the Hawaiian Steam Navigation Company, and had no authority to execute the said promissory note to the plaintiff.
Mr. Ducorron, attorney for plaintiff.
Mr. Bates, Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Harris, attorneys for the defendants.

Chief Justice Lee
said that he had little or no doubt that a general agent had power to buy and sell for the company, in the ordinary course of its business; and perhaps he might give the note of the company for purchases made on behalf of the company within the scope of his authority; but in such a case, the consideration ought to be set forth on the face of the note; be otherwise shown; or at least, be stated in the petition; but that in the present case, neither of these things had been done. He further said,-that even though no one should appear to oppose the motion for judgment in a case like this, it would still be the duty of the court, to compel the plaintiff to show,
1st, That the maker of the note was the legally constituted agent of the company.
2nd, That as such agent, his powers were sufficiently broad to give him authority to bind the company, by his promissory note.
After some conversation between the court and the counsel for the plaintiff, the motion was withdrawn, and the suit discontinued; it being understood, that the counsel opposed to the motion, would raise no question as to the power of the plaintiff’s counsel to faring a new suit.