The Hawaiian gazette., 1871-09-13
Supreme COurt-In Equity.
BEFORE HARTwELL, VICE cH.
Kapea et al. Is. Nm. I. Moehonua.

| oy false representations to sign a pretended
power of attorney which which was in fact deed
of conveyance Of his lands to the respondent
now claimed by his heirs. The nature of the
answer is stated in the Opinion of the Court.
A. f. Judd for the complainants.
R. q. Stanley for the respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
1t is seldom that the Equity power of this
Court has been invoked for the purpose of re-
scinding conveyances. In the Morrison case,
Haw., 272, the Chancellor decreed that con,
veyance be set aside on petition of the vendor
on the ground of fraud, by reason of misrepre-
sentations made by the vendee when occupying
certain confidential relations with the vendor.
This decree was affirmed by the Court in banco,
in June, 1862.
In Wood VS.. Stark, Haw. 9, the jury were
instructed in an action of contract to recover
rent due on a written lease, to find for the de-
fendant if the lease was made and received in
fraud of creditors Like Instructions were given
in Cockett vs.. Hubbard, I6., l0l on the in
validity of deed of conveyance as against
creditors. So in Alo VS.. Blair ct als, ID, l53
In Williams ct ais. vs.. Kaea, I6 236, a deed of
conveyance, absolute on its face, was held to
have been intended as a mortgage, and re-
conveyance on payment of the debt was decreed
In Turner'S case, H., 266, in probate, the Court
held that an administrator must account to the
intestates heirs for the proceeds of sale of the
real estate ordered by the Court, purchased by a
third party for the administrator and by him
sold, on the ground that trustee should derive
10 benefit from bis trust.
In Clegb0rn vs. Austin ct ais, at the April
Term, 1867, of this Court an action of contract
was brought to recover the value of goods mort
gagged to the plaintiff by the defendants assiguor
in bankruptcy. The defence that the mortgage
was in fraud of rights of creditors, and executed
by an illiterate person without full knowledge of
ITS effect, was held BY the Court in bdneo to be
good In Ainini VS.. Kala, in Equity, in June,
1869, conveyance of land was decreed to be
void on the ground of fraud, or under advantage
taken of position of trust to drive an unfair
bargain with an aged woman, and reconyeyance
was ordered These cases are all that have come
before this Court, so far as l can learn, which
bear on the points in the present case.
The rules which apply in this case are
very plain and clear. As between the grantee
ard the grantor and his heir, conveyance ex-
ecuted under false representations, and by mis-
take of its meaning and effect is always held to
be void In addition to the decisions above re-
Al g al,
English Chancery cases will serve to define the
rule which must be applied when as in this case,
special advantage is obtained by one occupying
a position of trust. "'The jurisdiction exercised
by Courts of Chancery over the dealings of
persons standing in certain fducary relations
has always been regarded as one of the most
salutary description. Whenever two persons
stand in such relation that while it continues,
confidence is necessarily repOsed by one, and the
which naturally grows out of that con-
fdence is possessed by the other and this con-
fidence is abused, or the influence is exerted to
obtain an advantage at the expense of the con-
fiding party, the person so ayailing himself of his
position will not be permitted to retain the ad
L cI NlelulSiOEus 1us Ou'i III ldbc h5.
Williamson, Ch., 81, Qs66.) 1 take it to be
a well established principle of this Court, that
persons standing IN confidential relation towards
others can not entitle themselves to hold benefits
which those others may have conferred upon
them unless they can show to the satisfaction of
The Court that the persons by whom the benefits
have been conferred, had competent and iDde
pendent advice in comforting them" Per Turner
J.. in Rhodes vs.. Bate, Ch., 257, Q866)
The rule of course applies also, that fraud is
never presumed but must be established by af-
irmatve evidence, and that a deed prima facis
valid can only be set aside by proof of sufficient
acts to authorize the Intervention of Court of |
Equity on established principles of Equity.
1 will recite the facts in the case which are
proved by uncontradicted evidence, or are ad-s
nitted, which appear to me to be in any degree
material to the issue.
Antoine Haalou, master of a coasting vessel
radiDg between these Islands, died iDtestate in
in April, 1869, leaving a widow,
lister and nephew, the complainants. he was
IN old friend of the respondent, and lived on
erms of great intimacy with him. In 1860,
Aug. l0) the respondent executed and delivered
o Antoine his promissory Dote in the sum Of
$500. payable Feb. TO- 1861, which note has never
,een cancelled or re-delivered, and is now in pos
ession of Antones heirs. Sept. 27, 1860, re-
pondent executed to Antoine a conveyance of
ertain land in Kaiihi Apana 5, Land Award
10. 645O, in which consideration of $500 is
tated in figures, the figure having evidently
een originally 6, and changed to an g. This
is acknowledged, not recorded and
now in the respondents hands. Antoine, by
Is first wife. had an interest in certain land in
Ianoa Valley, which, by deed of Jan. 30, 1866,
e conveyed to one KamaluIa, the deed being
uly acknowled and recorded on the day Of its
ate. 1t does not appear that he ever had any
lterest in any other land in Manoa or elsewhere,
kept in certain house lot and in kalo lot in
honolulu. April 10, 1865, Antoine executed a
eed Of conveyance to the respondent of the
aid house and kalo lots, and Of the land in
,alihi described in the respondents conveyance
f Sept. 27, 1860, in which the consideration Of
800 is expressed. This deed is signed by An ,
one's mark, witnessed by Thomas Brown, and
and recorded on the day Of its |
ate and is in the respondents possession. The {
loyal Patent to Akoni, No. 1902, of said house /
!. : IL. T1o-.1