Polynesian. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu], Hawaii) 1844-1864, 1859-05-14
SUPREME COURT---In Equity.
E. X. LAANUI vs. EMELA PUOHU and GEORGE Car

E. K LAAxUI vs. EMELA PUoHU and GEORGE Cas-
The Chief Justice delivered the decision of the Court
as follows:
This is an appeal from decision of the Chief Justice
bill in Equity, in which the Complainant sets forth
that she is the daughter of one Laanu native Chief
of these Islands, deceased leaving considerable property
which she and her brother Gideon the only heirs
That, Laanui died ntestate. leaving widow, Emea
PuOhu administrative upon the Estate. That Puohu
procured Royal Patent to be issued to g. Laanui,
for her. Puohu, of certain piece parcel Of land IN
Honolulu description of which is forth in her bill.
She further alleges this lot of land of right be-
longed the Estate of said Laanui, and that Puohu
had other than her right of dover in the premises
That she procured the ROval Patent to be issued, in
her favor, by false and fraudulent representations.
That she would not be entitled any part of the real
estate in fee simple, and that said lot is than one
third of the value of the real estate of the said Laanu
There other allegations in the original bill
which not relied upon, attempted TO be enforced
the Appeal. that the only question for our decs
ion, is the validity of the title of PuOhu to the house
lot specified
1t appears in evidence that Mr.. John Ii appoint
ed guardian OF the minor children on the 4th day OF
November 1885, aud that the amount of the inventory
of the rendered by the Administrators who
were Mr.. John Ii and E. PuOhu 49, ,0o3 %, on the
2lth day of May 1851 On the 26th day OF May
1851 property, including this lot of land in Honolulu,
amounting in value to $lllS IL assigned to Puo-
hu under the following agreement, viz
''It is hereby agreed by and between Puohu, the
widow of G.. Laanui deceased, and John the Guard
ian of the children and heirs of the said G. Laanui,
that the above named property belonging to the Estate
of the said Laanu shall be and is hereby set apart to
the said Puohu and hereby received by her. in lieu,
and in full satisfaction of her right Of dover in said
estate.
In witness whereof we have hereuntO hands
and seals this 26th day of May, A. d. 1851
(Sgned) Joane Ii L. S.
E Puohu RI. 81
Signed and sealed in my presence.
(Signed) W. L. Lee.
1t further appeared in evidence that the accounts Of
the guardian and the administrators were finally set
tied and the several bonds cancelled and parties dis
charged, and that Royal Patent issued Of said
lot OF land in Honolulu to Puohu, the 9Th August
1856.
1t was alleged on the part of the complainant that
Puohu had obtained her title to the house lot surrept
tiously.
By the common law of this Kingdom prior to the
enactment of law regulating guardians and wards
approved 4th of August, 1851. Guardians had from
time immemoral possessed and exercised the absolute
right TO dispose of the real, and personal Estate OF
their wards might suit their own will Ii is very
clear then that Mr.. Ii the Guardian had the legal right
dispose of the real Estate of his wards At the time
the Aforesaid agreement made, 1t was a contingent
interest or claim to the lot in controversy, first to be
awarded by the land Commission, and then commute
ton to be made in order to procure Royal Patent,
which Puohu accomplished and not the heirs OF LaanuI
At most their interest was by the Land Commission
Award, but 80 years. In the schedule to which was
attached said agreement and in which, were many
tcles Of personal property, there was included "a
house lot in Honolulu valued at 500. And the
language that the above named property, belong
ing the of the said Laanu shall be and hereby
is apart the said Puohu, and is hereby received
by her, in lieu, and in full satisfaction Of her right Of
dover in said Estaie As between the parties this is
legal assignment Of the property. The Guardian
had a right to convey and the widow to receive the
conveyance in the settlement 1t is conended that this
is not legal conveyance because it was not acknow-
lodged before some judicial authority As between the
parties that is not necessary Acknowledgement and
Registry only have efficiency in protecting innocent
parties-but grantors and their heirs cannot shield
themselves, and convey second time, because the first
grantees have failed have their conveyance recorded
1t has been cUntended that evidence should be admitted
to give construction the agreement, but the Court
regard it clear and explicit in its terms, and free
from ambiguity, and therefor that the evidence was
clearly inadmissible The assignment in the present
case proved to have been signed sealed and delivered
in the presence of Witness and placed among the pa
pers Of the Estate Court and between the present
parties it can not be deemed void whatever might have
been the a subsequent purchaser without no
ce But suppOsing the assignment was not suthcIent
In point of law to convey the lands, it would form
title in Equity sufficient to repel the Complainants
claim II would authorize Court to decree Convey
apce of the legal Estate from the heirs OF Laanui,
the legal Estate in them But II Is SAID that the
Priyy Council must follow the award of the Land Com
mission Do they not do so in this case They doubt
less regarded the agreement for the REIMBURSEMENT Of
dover In the estate at least equitable assignment
of the rights of the heirs to this lot of land and there
fore it carrying out the purpose OF the award to
convey to the assigns of the original claimant And
the oyal Patent has placed the legal estate IN Puonu