The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1860-11-08

material uisrrpxsseaatioas Of matters ofae-, even though th-y
Tartbes, orLy The mistake o'tse -TsH;-es alone, 1il Z aHaaled II
e9q-iy. "h sy 2 I-r-ga has ned a -; IA ya, a S - a. sas
Jet q the contract. sad whAi h- La nui HapaIisi TO h- ee'fe
~ " u et-'f - = - u = - 'N"
IT, 60 4. ~ 49, 49, 80. - . vyEt 80, IT,
relationship % husband and sife. who's the superintendent q
the and: ia acoriauce Euh a SAGE s1ueShat peculiar 70 his
p-ple-buG - regard . q d, an incai-ut q the transaction Of
@n- meI.en-, and a in'-leSlHey o. e'Is tsr@tl2a' has inaIe-
summing up the whole ca u presents this statement PaAuLau
wife ofta- respondent, 20 Ina, she vas known aud regarded a.
is kgnoh.AL aud ~ h-r death tbs supervision was assumed by
r-P"alra-- after his marriage IL the Year 1852. took up his
residence ou q kgleana . tins tract q land. some distance ctwo
Or ,hr-e miles. firm the sa. and has continued to reside there
ever since In october, ls55. h4!.kaaa addressed a noe to re-
AXIOM he could "a relation - the Iani, AMI IN hing hun what
Ten dollars. al tae incsIars q the and hen elected. Mia: vas
III resFondeat,s duty at this interview. called a. he ~as TO give
pacing KaA&aua in the same situation with himself on the sc.l.
q knowledge, and a negotiation could not properly fIo~ FOR ia
purchase tai This had been done. lie came 10 HIo in rursu-
csaled any Information he hal of the land VIVA; had been ms
auce win the country round. liz asSoci4t.on with those sho lad
known the land Tor many years and in whose supervision Il ~as
known that tM. vast tract which he soon after regarded a. Is or
10 miles in extent. aud containing fry or sixty thousand acres,
should have been limited 10 twelve or fifteen hundred acres,
Bet admit, fr The SAKE Of the argument thatAsdd labor under
this extraordinary error Al the time, what Vas his duty after he
flssS'TTsd The s1isH. o. Us PaTeaass; 50 contrary 70 What he
sale, as well as THAI Of Do"sei' when he re!inqushed his mort
gage. Was it not clearly TO have offered q re-conyeyance, on
~ Eru4Ll y error or aLrE ne LSC1hET II beCAElra fraud 10
:. - - :, - - - SbnNra-v - - 1919 -
Of Reynolds rs. Sprye, Vol l3 English Law and Equity Reports,
PIP. llS, ia, where Lpri CraugoTth says a. follows:
Of them induces the other to contract on the faith Of the repre-
:entations made TO him, any one Of whieh las been untrue and
considered as having been obtained frauduleutIy. Who can saw
which turned the scale in the mind OF the party to xhc il was
addressed The case i not at all varied by the circumstance
error II after IN error bas len 5f.e7yarej tte - 49, - = =
inuuceIIy made the Incorrect representation suffers the other
party 70 continue in error. and act on the belief that no error has
been made, this from tie time Of the discovery, becomes, in the
contemplation Of this Court a fraudulent misrepresentation, even
These are all principles Of such obvious justice as to require
neither argument nor authority TO illustrate OF enforce them, and
sent, The only question can be in each particular case, how far
the facts bring it within the principle.
e ioreyer negligent the party may have been 20 whom the
Incorrect statement has been made, yet that Is a matter afford
ing no ground q defence 10 the other. For no man can complain
that another has too implicitly relied on the truth OF what he has
The authorities regard representations q material facts. known
TO he Glse, or not known, whether they are true or false, a. the
know 10 be true i A. uujustifable in Law as the affirmation Of
What IS Snown TO b false, and especially under the circumstan-
tilted in making false and rash statements 20 complete a contract
rs. Meilyeott. Vol. PICK. p pearson -. Morgan. , Bro. On
T.. S99. Collins Is. Harrison. II Met. Rep 5isI Ifmi,repre-
sensations Ar made, when parties are in treaty upon the subject
matter Of 4 sale. and which are the inducenent to complete it,
the inference IS that they were made Tor this purpose. There
vas evidence IN relation % The situation and quality Of ihe land.
but the Court have not REGARDED it material il the Consideration
the amount on which the bargain was predicated, and heamount
in proof a. sufficient ground t" avoid the sale and give relief
when The whole circumstances Of the sale and the principles
which govern Courts q Equity are regarded. mop
In the case Of Cockel IS. Taylor. Canet rs. Preston. Preston
Is Colett. English Law and Equity Reports, Vol. Is, page lOl,
he Master q the Rolls. in giving Judgment. says, Coupling
this inadeg11ey Of Puee with The other circumstances Of the case,
the question / have TO determine Is, whether this "a transaction
which this Court can allow to stand. II i not my intention TO
Jay GOV IhAt any lnAiSqlley o. pre-, HnLccomPanied by other
s ana r - Sonss IS =, snl W. / tr'' 3 III IL ana ! hTele, $50;
few hariey-cOrns, had ia reality contracted - give 500 quarters
q barley FOR a horse worth ES. lis, in fact, evidence Of fraud,
hNs tanning atH-. hE no means conclusive evidence /; and II q
purchaser ~ith his eyes open, without couoeaIment or deception
on the part o. the seller. choose 70 give ten times the value - I
property. it i far from my intention 10 say anything that can
a. j.. being DESTROYS Of raising money to enable him to prosecute
hs claim TO a fund in Court. applied 10 a solicitor for that pur-
agreed 70 lend $1,000. and \. b. agreed to purchase from him
some land Tor 10000 G-n times its va!ue.) The land was con-
yeyed, and the funds in Court mor;ga-eI Iy A. n. FOR the
soO00: bot the $1,000 was not advanced At the time. The
Court. on the ground Of ;hs gross inaieqlacy u value, coupled
with the Other circumstances Of tire case, set aside the whole
It has been con;eniei by the learned counsel for the respon-
dent that the Court should regard the sound distinction recoc-
hc performance, and that Tor resembling the contract This is
true distinction; for inaiequacy q price may be sufficient
when il would nc: be for setting aside a sale. and the parties
would be left to their legal r=melies-lDs-coi and FRANKLIN. ?
In The case Of Davidson Is. Little, - Penn, 245, the Chancel-
Tor refused TO interfere. where a contract hai been executed. 10y
declaring 1t VOID on the ground Of inaiequacy, except in the case
Desaus, go, the Court refused to decree specific performance OF
a sale. when the inadequacy Of price was very great. though
man, just Of age, ignorant Of the value Of The land. and having
acted somewhat IreciPtately On being urged. The authorities
unquesuonably sustain the doctrine thai a COur; Of Equity may
refuse TO enforce an ayreemen; for inaiequacy - consiieTa,ion.
yet the inaieluacy must be so great u 10 he evidence OF some
unreasonable advantage, amounting to evidence OF fraud. Lord
possible to state it to a man of common sense without producing
an exclamation at the inequality Of it. In the case % Seynan
serse n an i1liiF.rrnt man II - c5ntrSc. = ~ ~; rTe Hm M
eraieiy and fair in all its parts, otherwise it is no objection to its
being executed. From the huctuation OF prices it j. very clear
that 1t would be uusound and unfair t. set aside conveyance OF
property on this ground alone there must have he IA deceit
as = ~ %h.h SrIl.ary IrGIenSs could not protect lnihe case
OF Grifhth - spritley' Cox, 3S5. Eyro. Chief Baron, says that
If Courts Il Equity were TO unravel all these transactions they
wou!i 5eroE everything iAio Confusion and set ahoat the con-
when a party has ieen induced to purchase land by the IN
intentional Misrepresentation Of the seller As to quantity. the
deficiency being material, equity will reScnd the contract. and
this. though the complainant seeks relief upon the ground that
the representations were fraudultu ly made. Il the ausy.r admits
a mistake As TO the quanity-Beknap -. Sealey = Dace $40.
In this case the answer does not admit a mistake although the
evidence fully proves that there was a far larger tract even than
the respondent supposed he was purchasing.
The general doctrine i admitted on all hands that when the
quantity ofland i knowingly misrepreSentei by the vendor, the
BaitocE. , Woo.iLury & Min. DID il i dscIarri tbat r. a ~
son makes statements as to material matters connected with the
value Of he land. and which from being more within his private
knowledge, or other circumstances we're clearly relied on in the
purchaser. aud they turn on; to be false. thesaIe is void. whether
he oehe's them 70 he true or not; l. I. not e9nleni-d that the
wards hs deviAtei from MS duty, and made misrepresentation,
it would be. in poiu; Of law, breach d trust. involving a CON
struetve fraud, against which i Court q Equity ought to give
It is further eonenieI that the comphinau,s culpable neg
l-ct. in not ascertaiuinE with some degree q accuracy the ex-
tent aud value = lis lanl, was q bar % a recovery. An courts
sustain the doctrine ilat when the negotiation i fair and the
parties equally innocent and the quantity : by estimate and No;
hy measurement, that the sale should le coufrmed-aud this is
-h~ principle upon which fh2<c cas- depends
Was the Negotiation a fair ONE We're tie parties equally
innocent
Hs wife was the koaohiki q the iInl. According TO an Ha-
waiuan custom she received This a--ncy-L=r mother having
been the agent before h-r-hs lived upon the land j. Il not an
inevitable inference that he knew that il was A large land. and
contained = FAR greater quantity than 1900 acres' The lowest
estimate J. that the tract contains JOOJs acres-and others es;i-
mate il AZ $1,000. WIKI This knowledge. AMI tLe relationship
which existed between the parties, even if there was no legal
agency on the part % the husband, still Il imposed upon him a
duty 70 be frank and open in his statements. II the law could
regard him = responsible Tor the agency Of the wife. 4 Court Of
Equity would regard the transaction - fraudulent per ~. but
~ arr not prepared under the circumstances Of this agency,
which i peculiar :" the HaSaiians, toimYeSe upon the husband
tn liabilities which are incurred by the common law. and We DO
not therefore regard this relationship e itself. not sustained by
other evidence, A. sufficient to sustain the complaint, aud render
the contract void
The answer !. full, AMI direct in ia denial of the fraud and
misrepresentation, and nothing but the clear and decisive testi-
mony OF Two witnesses or ~ other evidence quite equivalent.