PANAMA DEVELOPMENT CO. V. LAM HING CO.

tion and administration thereof and withhold from the plaintiff just and true accounts of the income and expenditures, and further that the said defendants have purposely and wantonly allowed said plantation to lie idle and have otherwise committed acts of waste and ruin thereon. It is alleged that by reason thereof the defendants are indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $100,500, United States currency, over and above the recognized indebtedness due the defendants, together with interest thereon and the costs of the operation of the plantation. Therefore, plaintiff prays for judgment for that amount and also for the rescission of the aforementioned contract.
The complaint discloses that the plaintiff is a corporation of the Republic of Panama; that the defendants are all citizens and subjects of Panama; that the contract was made in the Republic of Panama and was to be wholly executed therein. And, predicated upon these facts, the defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, which plea was overruled and exception noted. Thereafter the defendant filed his answer which was, in substance, a general denial of all allegations except the indebtedness of the plaintiff to the defendant, the mortgage, the contract and the possession and operation of the sugar cane plantation; and said answer further alleged that defendants had not been paid the full amount of the indebtedness resulting from the agreement, there being a balance due him of $80,000 United States currency.
After a lengthy trial resulting in a voluminous record, the court declined to grant the prayer of the plaintiff for a rescission of the contract, stating that it would not have jurisdiction in any event to rescind the same. However, the court proceeded to find for the plaintiff and rendered a judgment in its favor against the defendant in the sum of $40,000, together with costs.
The defendant is here on a number of assignments of error:
1. That the court erred in overruling defendants' plea to the jurisdiction of the court.
2. That the action is not instituted in the name of the proper party, it being claimed the action is brought by Col. Frank Morgan as attorney in fact for the corporation instead of by the company itself.
3. That the judgment is contrary to the evidence and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
4. That the judgment is contrary to law.
5. That the court erred in overruling the motion of the defendant to dismiss at the conclusion of plaintiff's case.
6 and 7. For alleged errors of the court as to the admission and rejection of evidence at the trial of the case.

303