Wright v. Hawaiian Steam Navigation Co.

1 Haw. 238
CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1856
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Haw. 238 (Wright v. Hawaiian Steam Navigation Co.) 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
Wright v. Hawaiian Steam Navigation Co., 1 Haw. 238 (haw 1856).

Opinion

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After some conversation between the court and the counsel for the plaintiff, the motion was withdrawn, and the suit discontinued; it being understood, that the counsel opposed to the motion, would raise no question as to the power of the plaintiff’s counsel to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.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Haw. 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-hawaiian-steam-navigation-co-haw-1856.