The Hawaiian gazette., 1873-06-18
Supreme COurI-In Equity.
BEFoR ALLEN, c. ].

ant alleges that the said William Fetlers was
resident of Honolulu in August, 1869, aud that
William II. Huddy, then and still resident oi
Honolulu, was indebted to him in the sum oI
$500, and gave him his promissory note for the
same, on the 18th day Of August, same year, pay
able to his order in u months with interest, and
that falling to pay the same, he renewed the note
on the 18th day OF August, 1870, adding interest,
making the amount S44s, payable in u months
with interest. and that said Huddy has also failed
to pay the said last described note.
The complainant farther AYERS that said Fetters
died in Philadelphia, and made and published his
last viii and testament bearing date Of August
29th, 1870. which was duly proved, one J. G.
Rosengarten being named as executor, and who
procured the probate thereof, and that subse-
quently, to Wit, on the 9th of December, 1871,
said RosengarteG having failed to procure pay
ment of the said debt or any part thereof, obtain
ed the judgment of the Supreme Court Of this
Kingdom for the sum of S5O225, being the
amount due on said promissory note principal
and interest and costs and the complainant fur
ther alleges that he was duly appointed admins
traitor with the Will annexed, on the 22d day Of
March, 1873.
And the complainant further alleges that said
Huddy being possessed and entitled of several
parcels of real estate situate 10 Kalihi, Island of
Oahu, and known as Keonepame and Puuwaa-
kuku, and conveyed to hum by two deeds dated
24th Of February, 1866, and l4th of February,
1867, more particularly described therein, con-
veyed the same on the 2Sth day of April, 1870,
in consideration of love and affection to his wife,
Kahea Huddy, for her life, aud to his children
Mary Ann, Lydia G. and George Il. Huddy, and
any other children which might be born unto
him thereafter; that no valuable consideration
was paid for the same, aud that it was purely
voluntary conveyance, and that the same ought
not to prevail against the lawful claims of the
complainant which accrued before and existed at
the time of the execution of said deed, aud that
the same is in fraud of the rights of the COM
planant in the premises, and ought to be declared
void as against said judgment.
Attorney-General A. T. Judd was appointed
guardian "ad litem" of the children heretofore
udLISA Alu hlduG duohtI luhl tue StheIul dlleUa-
tions in the bill were true aud William II. Huddy
and Kahea Huddy by their answer admit all the
allegations of the bill. but submit to the judg-
ment Of the Court whether said promissory note
of William II. Huddy in favor of said William
Fetters, bearing date the 18th day of August,
1870, being subsequent to the execution of said
deed Of conveyance, to wit, on the 25th of April,
1870, was in law prior lien upon the real estate
conveyed and whether the deed of conveyance
made prior to the date of the note on which judg-
meut was obtained, ought to be decreed null and
void.
1t is admitted that the conveyance was volun-
tary and without consideration, aud was made
when he was indebted for the note given in Au-
gust, 1869, but that the same was renewed in
August, 1870, subsequent to date of deed.
From the facts admitted and proven, it is very
clear that the conveyance was in fraud of credi-
tors, Of which said Fetters was one.
What effect did the renewal have on the right
of the parties
l am of opinion that it was not au extinguish-
meDt of the debt, but merely cancelllng of the
former note. The deed being fraudulent when
made as against the complainant intestate, will
continue so till his indebtedness then existing ia
discharged. 1t is admitted by the answer that
the first note was not paid
In the case OF Pomroy ct al rS Rice, I6 Pick
srug, %, the Court declared it well settled
principle, that when a mortgage aud note are
given to secure the payment of sum of money,
the renewal of the note does not operate as dis
charge of the mortgage.
The same principle was recognized in Davis
aud Mayard, Mass, 242.
Watkins & Hill, Pickering, 522 was decided
On the ground that the note was a mere renewal
and not intended as payment of the debt.
1t is admitted that the last note was a renewal
Of the first aud there is no pretence that it was
n payment.
1t may be well to remark that the case of Cum
mings e al U.s. Wond, 3 Haw'n Reports, the
Court decided that the husband could not legally |
convey lands by deed to his wife during coverture
aud the deed in that case was declared void.
By that decision the deed in question would |
be void so far as the interest Of the wife Is con-
,erned we're it not void on the ground already
stated.
The deed referred to in the pleadings is hereby
declared void and judgment is given for the CON-
painants without costs to the minors.
L. McCuly for COmplainants, and A. F. Judd,
guardian ad ifem for minors.
w. H. Huddy. in person.
June S, 1873.
A NEW PARrr.-It is reasserted in Washington
hat Gov. Hendricks of Indiana, the candidate for
yhom the largest number of Democratic votes we're
asst for the President in the late Electoral College,
lad for the object of his visit in Washington the fu
ure course of respective parties. He is known to be
he most conservative in his political views, and it is
aid his mission is one of peace and conciiation.
L is said Judge Thurman, Mr.. Beck and others de-
line as yet to join the movement, while others de-
lare their adherence. Governor Hendricks proposes
o organize new party which shall have for its plat
orm such conservative and compromising declaration