The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1882-11-29
Supreme Court OF tho Hawaiian rslands.
In Banco.- October Term 1882


C.JS McCully and Austin, j. j.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, c. j..
Hhisis an action Of ejoctment to recover
certain premises in Honolulu, being portion
ofApana of Royal Patent No. 1885, l.. c. A.
hosa246,N No. l. The case was tried at the
July Tern, 1889, and the jury rendered yc.,
diet ferthe defendant under instructions from
the Court. The aforementioned Royal Patont.
No. 1885, when introduced in evidence. was
found to contain the following words. viz:
Whereas the Board of Commissioners to Quiet
Land Titles have by their decision. awarded
unto halaeokekoi, for Kalakini, Land Claim
No. 6245, No. /" etc. And, whereas. tbe
said Kalakini has committed the titloas inward
cd for fee simple title by the payment Of
etc. Therefore, Kamehameha III, etc, has
this day granted and given absolutely in fee
simple unto kalaeokekoi, for Kalal,ni, all that
certain piece OF land, etc., ETC., to have and to
hold, otc., unto the said Kalaeokekoi, for Ka-
LAM, Der heirs aid assigns forevcr.'' The
original Award, No. 6245, No. |, contained
these words, to wit: Part l. This is what
We now award TO kalaeokekoi and his heirs. -
Signed by the members of the Land Commits
sion. In the survey following, are these words
Description of boundaries Of five parts of the
land Of Kamakela, in the property of Kalaeo-
kekoi, for Kalakini."
There was also put in evidence Award No
S2t5, to "Kalaeokekoi, mo Keaka,') of a
piece of land in Lahaina aW1.fI 3. TTTh
The Court ruled: al hold that the original
Royal Patent produced, conveys the land de-
scribed in Award 6245, No. /, and runs to
kalaeokekoi, for Kalakini; and this makes the
heirs of kalakini the owners of tic land IN
question" Whereupon the jury were instructed
to return verdict for defendant, which they
did; and which was duly accepted to and OK
captions allowed.
The plaintiff 10 tue younger of the name
Kalaeokekoi and claimed by descentfrom him.
and the defendant claims the land through
Kalakini.
It 10 evident upon the face of the papers on
tile that Kalaeokekoi died after filing his claim
and before the Judgment of the Land Com
mission was made. Otherwise the award
would not have run Kalaeokekoi "for his
heirs" A M 81
The case OF Davis vs.. Brewer Bird Hawaiian
Reports go settles the law that Royal Patent
not void on its face can only be set aside in
equity. The Court say +" To Rule that every
Royal Patent issued to any person other than
the one named in the award is Drina facie
Void az against such award would upset land
titles and make strange confusion. The
presumption, on the contrary, is, that the Pa
tent was issued to the legal holder of or to the
ono legally entitled 70 the award" > fTt
- npt denied that q Patent conveys only
legal title and leaves the equities open. But
we merely decide that Patent valid on its
face II good in law and is the best evidence of
title. and that the equities can only bereached
IA Court Of Equity and not by an action of
electment. In that case the plaintiff claimed
under an award to himself and the defendant
claimad nrtdQr Rnvol. -. 4
the same land aud based on the same award,
where the government had undertaken 10 Issue
The Patent TO grantee of tho original award.
The Court, on page 2e2 Of the decision, recog
nlZed lhe principle that land Patent may be
issued to the heirs of the person who held the
certificate emitting him to the land and cited
: Blacktord 4o6, Mclean 500 and 2 Wash.
Il. p. 542.
Thecase athar is stronger one for tho ap-
Dlication of the principle that Royal Patent
valid on its face is good in law as the best
evidence Of title, for in our case tie plain
tiff bases his suit on the Royal Patent itself.
Tho Royal Patent being 20 Kalaeokekoi for
kalakini and he claiming through Kalaeolelloi
and not through Kalakini, he cannot recover
against the heirs or assigns of Kalakin
This was so held in Kane ct al vs.. Perry I'D |
sos.
Butitis contendod that by latter decision. |
Rrunz Va. Minister Of Interior Sd Hawaiian
763, twas held. that Royal Patents based on
Awards do not confer on confirm title"
We remark here that since the decision IA |
he case Of Hrewer VS.. Davis and before The
;asa lat cited was tried, the Legislature (Aots |
y 1872 Chapl ~ passed aa Act requiring |
.hatsevery Royal Patent thereafter issued upon \
y Award shall be 10 ihe name OF the person :
. whom the original award was made, though 4
be original awaTdee be dead or have alienated /
DO land, and onactins that all Royal palonR
% ianucd shall insure TO the benefit Of The
al award, and It was b. the light of this
latuto that lhe Court used the following