Archer v. Makee

Hawaii Supreme Court

Archer v. Makee

1 Haw. 47

DecidedApril 15, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Haw. 47 (Archer v. Makee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archer v. Makee, 1 Haw. 47 (haw 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Lee,

delivering the opinion of the Court, ruled as follows :

A suit cannot be sustained on this contract in the name of Archer and others, for they are not parties to it. That the owners of the barque might bring an action on this contract, in the name of Cobb, is not denied; but to say that the principals can sustain a suit on a written contract entered into by their agent, in which the names of those principals do not appear, is going beyond the law. The annexing to Capt. Cobb’s name the words, st Master of the barque Elizabeth Archer,” does not alter the case, and must be treated merely as a description of his office, and designation of the person. By no [48]*48means can it be so construed as to make Archer and others parties to this contract.

Mr. Montgomery for plaintiff. Mr. Bates and Mr. Burbank for defendants.

Under the ruling of the court, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted to a non-suit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Chief Justice Lee,

delivering the opinion of the Court, ruled as follows :

A suit cannot be sustained on this contract in the name of Archer and others, for they are not parties to it. That the owners of the barque might bring an action on this contract, in the name of Cobb, is not denied; but to say that the principals can sustain a suit on a written contract entered into by their agent, in which the names of those principals do not appear, is going beyond the law. The annexing to Capt. Cobb’s name the words, st Master of the barque Elizabeth Archer,” does not alter the case, and must be treated merely as a description of his office, and designation of the person. By no [48]*48means can it be so construed as to make Archer and others parties to this contract.

Mr. Montgomery for plaintiff. Mr. Bates and Mr. Burbank for defendants.

Under the ruling of the court, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted to a non-suit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Haw. 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archer-v-makee-haw-1851.