The Hawaiian gazette., 1874-06-03

solemn deed under SEAL which is contrary to th,
rules Of law. But the evidence Of Kamohai'
acts ard representations are not offered to con
tradict the deed Of Koa to Wanaoa, but merely
to establish by parO state of facts that will ba
or estop Kamohai from proving and asserting By
parol that be is the son and heir Of Halai auC
entitled to the land as against Wanaoa and hi.
heirs They are independent facts.
A general objection is made to courts Of Law
entertaining evidence of equitable estoppels, on
the ground that it is unsafe to trust juries with
such questions. especially where land titles are
affected; but We doubt if questions of right and
wrong, Of good faith and honesty, would be more
difficult for juries to decide upon, under the d.
rection Of the Court than the questions ordinari-
ly within their Jurisdiction.
Believing the doctrine Of estoppels by conduct
to be just and beneficial, we can see no objection
to administering this rule in courts of law. The
object of Courts of law being the furtherance of
legal justice, aud to encourage fair and truthful
dealing among men, no harm can result to the
county if q principle be now adopted which will
tend to secure these results.
We are Of the opinion that this decision is in
consonance with Section llO7 OF the Civil Code
which enacts THAT the defendant may give 10
evidence as a defence to any civil action, any
matter Of law or fact whatsoever"
II it shall be found that the introduction of
such defences though not specially pleaded, tends
TO put the plaintiff at a disadvantage in not be-
ing prepared to meet them, the Court may make
a rule respecting notice to the opposing party of
matters intended to be given in evidence, in or
der to prevent surprise aud to afford opportunity
for preparation for trial. Section HOS of the
Civil Code gives Courts Of Record this power.
The tendency Of enlightened modern egisla-
ton aud Of courts of law, is TO become more and
more free from the bondage Of technical rules not
based on principles which further justice and
the history Of the particular doctrine under dis.
cussiOn is good illustration of this truth
For example, in Maine, in 1871 in tho case Of
Hamlin vs. Hamu 10 Me. al, the Court held
that no estOPpel in relation to real estate is
created by verbal contracts or admissions, but in
lSlS, Rangely VS.. Spring, IS Me. l27, in a writ
of entry, the doctrine of equitable estoppel was
adopted aud has been so uniformly ever since in
that State. Stevens VS.. Mcnamara, Sc 10. IFS; |
Stench6eld vs.. Emerson, 50 ID 465, and Qs7D |
Bigelow vs.. Foss, SO To- l62
In New Hampshire State celebrated for its l
devotion to the common law, the cases are all |
in favor of this view: 2 n. II. l67, Runlet VS.. |
Otis; n. II. 80, Morse VS.. Child; IL N. II. |
POI, Thomas vs.. Sanborn; ~ n. H. 1874. Mar
'hall vs.. Peircei 81 N. II. 2s9 Horn vs.. Cole
il \. II. 324 Stevens VS.. bennett
In New York State the cases are in some
conflict, but this defence is now allowed by
Statute. 1t is also law in California, Pennsyl-
'ania, and in England by Statute
In this country where the Judges of the Su,
IRENE Court have jurisdiction in equity, it is GER
ainly desirable to avoid circuity of action, and
re say that us this doctrine is good in equity it
good in law.
The Court has been materially assisted in ar.
wing at these conclusions by the learned decision
Mr. Hartwel, lately Justice of this Court,
rho decided this case at nisi prius.
Exceptions overruled, and Judgment for the de-
sndant, to be entered as of the last day of the
erm, with costs.
ELISHA II. ALLEN,
CHAs. C. HARRIS,
A. Francis JUMP. Z:
IL NJ IA I