The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1874-01-21
HAWAIIANG GAZETTE
supreme Court-Jnn,y Term. Is74.
Komohai, Plaintiff Us. Kahele, Defendant

Supreme Court-Jnn'y Term. Is71'
Komohdi, PLAINTIFFS Kahele, Defendant
Action to recover possession of land
claimed by inheritance from the plaintiff s
father. Jury waived.
L. McCully for Plaintiff.
S. B. Dole for Defendant.
BY THE COURT:
The land in controversy is part of q
kuleana awarded TO one Halai, the plain
tiff's father, who died intestate in 1919
In 1855 a patent of the land so awarded
was taken out in the name of Halai, and
has remained in the possession of one
Koa, younger brother of Halai, now de
ceased, who in his lifetime had mortgaged
another portion of the land. The plain
tiff and Koa, with their families, lived to
gether on the land until 1860, when koa
sold this lot to one Wanaoa, the deceased
husband of the defendant. under whom
she holds as his heir at law. The sale was
made in the plaintiffs presence and by
his active assistance He counted out the
purchase money for Koa, went with the
parties to the registrar, and informed the
person who drew the deed OF conveyance
that Koa had the title in the land and the
right to convey it. He afterwards point
ed out to the surveyor the lot so pur
chased, and has never until this suit laid
any claim to the land. Meanwhile the
purchaser erected buildings and made i'm
provements on the land, and was treated
by the plaintiff as its rightful owner
The defendant thereupon claims that the
plaintiff is equitably estopped from assert
ing his legal title against her, and that
she can avail herself of this equitable de
fence in the present action, which posi-
tons are opposed by the plaintiffs coun-
sci.
/. The plain question is thus raised, o.
the sufficiency OF the facts shown to consti
tute an equitable estoppel, and if sufficient
of their admissibility as legal defence
The "ancient and curious doctrine - o.
legal estoppels was, that they precluded
party from availing himself of the truth
even in furtherance of his just and equita
bic rights. They arose in cases of records
deeds and matter IN pals which were o.
equal solemnity, as for instance, entry
livery, partition or acceptance of rent oil
of an estate. 1t was deemed important
or grounds of public policy, that no one
in court of law should be allowed to dis
pute the legal effect of his own acts O
this nature, or of formal Judgment:
against him. But as the application o.
this doctrine was often hard upon individ
uals, it was "odious," and pleas of estop
pei were therefore required to be full and
estoppel could be averred. But later
practice admitted all such matters of lega
estoppel TO be shown in evidence under
the general issue. Stephens Pleading
22o. Whenever the legal estoppel wa:
shown, its effect could not be avoided
in law, on such equitable consideration:
as fraud or mistake.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel by
conduct or by facts not equivalent to lie
gal estoppel is of more recent growth
1t rests not on grounds of public policy
as do legal estoppels, but on the just and
equitable principle that no one should
deny the validity of his own acts if they
were intended to influence and did influ
ence another, when such denial would
work injury to such other person. AnG
parties and privies are alike bound by and
may avail themselves of such estoppels
The foregoing statement presents familiar
general principles on the subject. Equi
table estoppels are so clearly just and ne
cessary for the furtherance of Justice, thai
they are favored by Courts, and in many
instances have been adopted and enforced
by courts of law as well as of equity.
Parsons says, the whole doctrine o.
equitable estoppels, has passed into court.
of law, and the doctrine of equity is Otter
asserted in respect to them by courts o
law. Contr., sol. Washburne says
=" 1t is very rare that this is allowed a
at law, and only it is believed where on,
man knowingly induced another to act by
the expenditure of money in improve
ments upon lands as if he had rightfu
title to the same, and adequate justic,
cannot be done by compensation il
money" Real Prop, &c. The Courts
of Massachusetts decline to hear sucf
equitable defences in real action wher
the result would be transfer of the title
in the land by parole. Heard VS.. Hall
l6 Pick, 400. But parole adjustments o
boundaries or partitions of land, and ora
submissions of an award by arbitrator:
are held to be binding, when shown to b,
acquiesced in and acted upon. See case.
cited in 2 Smiths Leading Cases, Har,
and Wallace's Notes, PIP. 75s-76l. Bragg
VS.. B. il w. R. R. Corp, 9 Allen, 81
Langdon VS.. Doud, 10 h., 437. Andrew,
VS.. Lyon, IL h., ISL. Turner VS.. Coffin
IL h., 40I. Searle VS.. Able, Is Gray
4l2. E 0n
In New York this defence was exclud
ed in actions at law affecting titles in land
Delaplaine vs. Hitchcock, Hill, II
Swick VS.. Sears, H., II. See howeve
Sayles vs. Smith, - Wend. SO. The Re
vised Statutes of New York are held t,
permit the defence, in consequence of tn,
provisions that the Supreme Court ha
general jurisdiction in law and equity,
and that " the testimony in equity case
shall be taken in like manner as cases a
law" Phillips VS.. Gorhsm, II n. Y.
272. Carpenter VS.. Ottley, Lans., 45e
Dewey VS.. Hoag, Is Barb, S6s. Trap
hagen VS.. Traphagen, II h., los. Dob
son VS.. Pcarce, 40 H., $50. Corkhill VS.
Landers, As Ib., 227.
The dafanca ras faru,arlx- raiaotad :,