The Hawaiian gazette., 1874-06-03
HAWAIIAN GAZETTE
supreme Court of the Hawaiian Isl.
ands-APrfI Term, 1874.

Kamobai a. vs.. Rahels C,c.)-on exception
from opinion of HartweI, j., January Term
1873. Jury waived s. B. Dole for Plaintiff
excepting L McCuly for Defendant. ALIEN
G. j., HARRIS and JUDD, j. J.
Opinion by Mr.. Justice JUMP;
This is an action of ejectment for the posses
sion of part OF Kuleana of land awarded tC
one Hala and his son, the Plaintiff, claim:
TO have inherited the land from said Haai, who
died intestate in ls49. The defendant claims
under deed FROM one Koa who was Halai's
younger brother. At the trial the defendant pul
in evidence the following facts: That in 1855 a
Patent of the land so awarded was taken out In
the name Of Halai and remained 10 possessioa Of
! koa, who had at one time raised money by q
I mortgage on portion Of the land included in
the patent. The plaintiff Kamohai and Koa,
with their families, lived together on the land
until 1850, when Koa sold the lot IN question to
oEe Wanaoa, the deceased husband Of the de-
PENDANT, 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 10 convey it. He
also pointed out to the surveyor the lot so pur-
chased, aud has never until this suit land any
claim for the land. Meanwhile the purchaser
erected buildings and made Improvements on the
land, and was treated by the plaintiff US its right
ful owner.
The defendant claimed that the above facts
established an equitable estoppel which would
operate to prevent the plaintiff from asserting
his title against her and that this defence though
an equitable one, should be received in d court
of law. The court below admitted the evidence
and held that it constituted bar to the action.
WhereuPon the plaintiff excepted. The first
question presented is, are the facts Of this case
sufficient to constitute an estoppel?
Estoppels are legal aud equitable Legal es-
toppels are such as arise by deed or by matter of
record and their theory Is, that they preclude
party from setting up the real truth of the tran
sacIion even though in furthenuce of his Just
and equitable rights. Such estoppels have been
called odious,' and courts have required strict
pleadlngs asserting them and strict proof III evil
denee OF them.
Equitable estoppels are such as arise from the |
facts Of the case; they are often called "estop-
pels in pals" or estOppels by conduct" They
are called equitable estOppels because first recog.
nized in Courts of Equity, which are courts Of
good conscience.
In equity, principles Of good faith, of upright
dealing, are applied, and estoppels are used to
e. prevent party FROM taking dishonest and
demonstrations advantage Of his strict legal
rights" See Horn vs.. Cole, 81 y. II. 1877.
Lord Denman thus defines them in Pickard VS..
Sears, Ad. Il +. 469. The rule Of law is clear
that where one by his words, or conduct, wilfuiIy
causes another to believe the existence Of GER
tain state of things, and induces him to act on
that belief so as to alter his own previous posi-
lion, the former is precluded from averrng against
The latter different state of things, as existing
At the same time"
In a recent case, decided in December, 1872.
81 \. II. 324, Stevens vs.. bennett, the Court
'ay: " A party who negIigently or cuIpabIy
tands by aud allows another to contract on the
aith and understanding of fact which he can
contradict, cannot afterwards dispute that fact
an action by or against the person whom he
las himself assisted in deceiying" In order to
% estoPPel BY conduct, there must have been
representation or cOneealment of material facts,
noWu by the party to exist, and with the inten- !.
Ion OF inducing party ignorant of the facts, to :
Ct upon the representations. Bigelow on estop- :
els, Chap. XIX, p. $50, and cases there cited. :
Whether the act or admission shall operate by :
ay OF estoppel or not must depend upon the
circumstances Of each case. WelIand Canal Co. !
:. Hathaway Wend., 4sO and this is the uues- :,
on for the Court Manning vs.. Cogan, 40 n. :,
l. SSI. =
kamohai, the plaintiff, 10 effect represented to :,
fanaoa, g. defendants ancestor. intestate :.
lat Koa really owned the land aud had the j
ght TO sell it, and be induced Wauaoa to buy it. q,
moving at the same time that the legal title was i
himself Therefore it would not be right or n
luiiabe for him to assert the contrary, and =
curt of Equity would not permit him to do so.
Is just the sane as il be had told his uncles =,
antee that be would never claim the land then
d. and the Court viii make him keep his pro n,
ise. IL the case Of Stevens vs.. bennett above :,
terred to, it held that :" If party claiming n
e right to the use Of well upon premises about M
be conveyed by deed, being present at the ex- NJ
ution Of the deed. and understanding its con- in
nts, signs the sane as s witness thereto and 4;
IS not disclose to the purchaser the fact that q.
had any claim to the well. and If the pur- N
aser being ignorant Of the pSrtrs claim, would no
{ have purchased If he had known thereof the Ia
rty viii not be permitted ia an action against co
purchaser, to set up bis claim to the use Of be
we'll even though his omission to disclose the si7
ne vas only an act Of gross negligence, and not tai
bad faith" he
Bot our case is stronger; for KsmOhAi did not Al
rely omit to say that as the son and beir Of 10
Llai he alone owned the land, but be actively sci
listed the selling Of the land by person hav- th,
no rights therein. to
10 the large array Of cases where this doctrine
eStonnal nv cnnarrt has 49,, s--is.s -. = IN