The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1880-08-28
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands
April Term, 1880.
: = K~EaUHULIHIAs EFT All. v. HIRAM AH1
Opinion by McCulky j.

= = KEAUHULIHIAA EFT All. v. HIRAM PUAHiRI.
Opinion By McCuAyJ J.
Referring to the extended statement Of the
facts of this case, and the law as established by
the authority of Zupplein estate case, (III Haw-
aim Reports 3231 ID the written opinion of the
Chief Justice ia his first decision, it will be sufi-
cient to say.
1.-The transaction Of the parties cannot be
viewed as a compromise. The defendant had no
right and no title. 1t is said in argument that
being in possession, he must be dispossessed by a
suit of ejectment, and that his settlement was
therefore a compromise. But it is not to be in
ferred that he would have resisted the occupation
by the plaintiffs when he came to know that he
had no title, and it is not to be sustained az a
! compromise that the plaintiffs should give up
half of their estate in order to avoid an action of
I, eiectment against the tenant of this half, who
would have no defense to set up and who must
paw the costs. Neither is it apparent what Pua-
hiki compromises when he only claims a half and
is given all that and relinquishes nothing, unless
making a partition of an estate is deemed a
compromise.
Alt stands then that the plaintiffs, without
consideration, granted the defendant half of the
estate, upon their view that he was entitled as
the husband of wife deceased without issue, and
leaving a brother and sister, the plaintiffs. The
statute subsisting in 1868 being that such a hus-
band took nothing of the wife's real estate. The de-
cision of the Court in the estate of Napua Zupple-
in Kaluahlne must be conclusive. Ihe question
was of the issue before the Court and was dis
tinceIy passed on. The doctrine of the law is
that all It's rules and principles are deemed GER
| tain, although they have not as yet been recog-
nized by public adjudications, (Story's Equity
Jur. ], &I26,) and therefore it must be consider
ed that the statute of descent was understood in
/ 1855, when Meaai died, as it was interpreted to
\ be ID 1871, in the above case, and the enjoyment
which the defendant had of this estate must be
deemed to have beeu with the free sufferance of
the plaintiffs. If then acting in ignorance of q
plain and settled principle of law these parties
give up a portion of their indisputable property
to another, in o settlement of supposed legal
rights, and without any other consideration, a
court of Equity should relieve them from the eff
| feet of the mistake, (Story's Equity Jur. ! 1917
| and e0aaIly 30 If the proposition to make such a
settlement has proceeded from the plaintiffs, and
the defendant may be free from imputation OF
| fraud or wrongful persuation. By relieving the
| n~laiptifs from the effect of their mistake, It can
not be said that the defendant is injured, for
there is no injustice in requiring him to render
back what he had 40 title, to, and gave nothing
for, and the decision of the Chief Justice con-
frming the lease made by the defendant to a third
party, but requiring the rent to be paid to the
plaintiffs, provides against the disturbance of
subsequent contracts.
The decree of the Chief Justice in Chambers is
affirmed.
Castle & Hatch, for plaintiffs, Preston & Brown,
for defendant. ECHAS. G, HARRIS,
HouoIula, July 1880. LAWRENCE MooULEY.