The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1871-03-01
supreme Court OF thc Hawaiian
Islands. January Term, ls7I--
ln Danco.
ALLEN c. J., uGRrwnL J., wrDKSASS >.
". II prris s. Canri.s Rrr,rr.

ihc laSSt luieu NJ TUE kEis Anat ne Snouiu lnIuet
the jury that the defendant on this evidence was
entitled to a verdict, on the ground that title
by Royal Patent was paramount to that Of an
award, to which ruling the plaintiff excepted. and
his exception being allowed, the case was with
drawn from the jury, with the agreement that if
this ruling should be affirmed by the full Court.
Judgment should be entered for the defendant,
otherwise that there should be a new trial
II. Thompson and W. c. Jones for Plaintiff
A. F. Judd for Defendant
OPINION OF THE COURT, BY uARrwELL J.
Section 4S Of the Civil Code which provides
that " Royal Patent shall issue to any holder of
an award from the Board of Commissioners" was
not in force at the date of this Patent, but the
following: "1he Minister Of the Interior shall
issue Patents or leases TO the claimants of land
pursuant to the terms in which the said Board
shall have confirmed their respective claims, upon
being paid the fees, &c, unless the party entitled
to lease shall prefer to compound with the
Miaister, as in the succeeding section allowed"
Sec. tx, p. log, Vol. |, Statute Laws. THE
Minister Of the Interior shall have power in con-
currence with the Privy Couneil under the sanction
of His Majesty, to issue to any lessee or tenant
for life Of lands so confirmed. being an Hawaiian
subject, patent in fee simple for the same upon
payment Of a commutation to be agreed upon by
His Majesty in Privy Council ID: See y.
The award by its terms conveys to W. II.
Davis an estate less than alodial which he can
change according to law to an aodial title if he
chooses but if not, he has an estate for 80 years
Section TX above cited gave the Minister of the
Interior no authority to issue on this award
Royal Patent, in fee simple, but this he could on
ly do IN concurrence with the King and Council
on commutation OF the price fixed upon, accord
ing TO the provisions Of Section Y The fee sim
pie patent in that case issued, at the discre-
tion OF the officers named, to the party entitled
to a lease" This was no mere ministerial duty.
and does not make it incumbent on the Minister
to compound Only with the original holder Of the
lease under the award Of the Commissioners
Neither does the Statute preclude all claims by
an assignee, heir or deyisee Of the original holder.
1t is well known that patents were so issued un-
der this statute, to persons presenting the origi-
nal awari with legal conveyance thereof 1t
has been held in the United States that land
patent may be issued to the heirs of the person
who held the certificate emitting hfm to the land
Shanks vs. Lucas Blackf, 476; Forsyth vs..
Balance, Mel, 562; Wash, Real Prop
$40 This would require eTidence that the claim
ant was the person named in the award or that
he was holding under that person, succeeding to
the right Of the first holder. To rule that every
Royal Patent issued to any person other than the
one named in the award is p, ina facis void as
against such award would upset land titles and
make strange confusion. The presumption on
the contrary Is that the Patent was Issued % the
legal holder Of, or to the one legally entitled to
the award The words Of Lori Coke apply. that
royal grants shall have no strict or narrow inter
probation for the overthrowing Of them, but
liberable and favorable construction of them for
the making Of them available 10 Law, usgus ad
pIsHiinieH FOR the honor Of the King Inst.
-. And 80 note, says the same author, the
gravity Of the ancient sages Of the law TO con-
sirue the Kings grant benefcially for his honor
and the relief Of the subject, and not to make
any strict Or literal construction in subyersion Of
sHUh night" Molyns Case, Rep. 6. Sow
sreign grants are said By Mr.. Justice Story to be
construed against the grantee only in cases Of
mere donation, aud not when there was 7alua-
bic Consideration, which does not appear az re-
quisiie to the award. It Is not denied that
Patent eOaveys only legal title, and leaves the
equities open Brush vs. Ware, Is Pet, 90 /
But We merely decide that Patent valid on its
face is good in law as the best evidence of title,
and that the equities can only be reached in
Court Of Equity, and not By an action Of eject I
ment- Otherwise, Royal Patent would fail
70 be as il vas intended il should be, an instru-
meni of quiet aud security to its pOssessor,"
Beard vs- Federy, Wallace, 1872
The Authorities cited in the brief Of the de-
fsndaut's counsel are conclusive. that a Pa
tent not void on its face, or appearing to be I
issGed contrary to a#, or without authority, can
not be imPeaehed cOliateraIly 10 Court Of law,
and that in order TO set aside Patent for mis-
take fraud, or other reason, application must be
made to Court Of Equity. Green vs. Liter,
Cr., go; Stoddar5 Ts Chambers, How. 3ls !
Sfriager Ts- YO1ngIs lessee. Pet, 34s Minter
Is Cromslia, Is How, 81; BsgusH vs. Broderick, I
I3 Pet, 435; Fem "a. Holman. q How. 4sI
Field Va Seabuy. 10 How, 322; People vs-
Livingston, Barb, 253
sines the foregoing opinion was prepared, the /
plsinti5s brief has been submitted and examin- /
ed, =bieh cites the following extract from the /
Act of Jaly 30. 1884, page AIS Of the Civil I.
Code: Section 3. ANY zzsrd Of the Land
Commission not appealed from within ninety
azJs after iis date in accordance with the present
lazs shall Be final and binding On all parties, and
shall be good s0d sufficient title to the person /
receising s1eh award, bis heirs and assigns, and /
shall furnish a. good and sufficient ground upon I
zhich 70 maintain 80 action for trespass, eject I
nsnt. Or other real action. against aay person or
persoas whatsoever a. Il the claimant, bis beirs
Or assiyus- had received Royal Patent for the 1
szEe: proEised that nothing in this Section
shall Be construed As aznuiIiDg the Goyernment
right to Communication IL any freehold award a. at !
Prssent established b. lsz-v Tie plaintiff arga-
Ient i based % the assumption that only the |
esiginsI boldsr of 20 sssrd cosld receive the !
pstsnt, AID be does not Observe that this award
af~os r1f r.4c~f n 4. -~1.~ cz>eso~ ~ ~ a.