The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1883-03-28

~ HtA-AHk crHll@tt g t91lalI.N ~ -'IA@ "
tsen. ~ he ecnseet & Nr. WisenAnp, hels,
saly = part cwneF, wcaii ecllcaryy NJ. AAzfss
in,eresl NJ. wiae@eaa says thai Whea y
vas scas eWper ~ ue3egs,e~l TIE arrange
nsai nade ~ pgcviOas 0wasgs sai Plaiai.
and apfscved 4 Il and Proeiss1 Ne P,aiahi
T. uake hi,n "a, aeei, h, sinply NrSot b
q - and sod TIE PhetaacR. nakias ~
Fsssrsatica e tbs LEI.
Il also sPPsars ~ he pEcofs thai NJ
Wfssc,ara knew q The irpscxeneniS Saae b.
Maals While he Mr.. Mideaaan and NF, Har-
rs owed the piaptaiiSa and hat Mr.. Wiae-
sana tally eeossssea 10 their beisg inaSle.
Here We ihiek was a aistirct Ard FESTIVE
axreene1t "a he part e TIE then preprietos
Il tAe plantation y cAke = ccnyeSsnee. ~
eSeeutiee Il wAicA can b eeGpsiled. The
svi2enee &c Nr. King and Mg. ?. y. Make
that Mr.. WS3ecana advised Capt. NAkee .
P1s plaintia "a Sanros aEees ihe plaintii' :
FigAt 10 ccaVeyance. TIE enly ellsel i 10
diserea1 Mr.. Wi2erann's eviaence that Ne
bad agreed 10 give TIE plsieti6 deed and We
thiak i = net cerelrsive ss i s admitted
that Mr. WS3enara was thea endeavosiss 10
persesic Cart Make 10 execute The agree-
nsns With plairtiG That Capt, Make. Mr..
Wideuann's grantee. had ncsiee Il the plAia-
tits eceeParey Ct Tie land aust be admitted.
"a The dcctrise sceus qeito krrnly settled
thai cpcn, notorious ant exclusive possession
q rial estate, under an apgarcnt claim q
ownership. IS rcties 70 these who subsequently,
deal with TIE title, e whatever iessresi TIE
ere in possession has IN its fees whether
such irisEess es legal or equitable in is
matters
wsdo Gu NO,ies ssTs and nary cases there
cited.
We cannot explain tie fast that Capt Make
Locked At thc Lard plais;iE bad agreed 10 give
in exchange sad that be bad = survey u,ade 81
Il. which be sent - Mr. Widensnn with a
request that in a6iisica to the Aparas two
and ,hrse eS the Rplal Paseas be wished
ApsnS e1e and another piece cf 18th q an
acre to be included in eSSer 10 ccnrccf these
pieces, sxcep; UPON the thecry that be was
thea wiling 10 execute the agreement We
nay here remark that. il nos berg shown
that MsHle oeisescd 70 the addition Il these
rieers. II may be presumed that he consented
10 ]: and that the ssree1ens was ncli6cd
accordingly. Bet whether wiilinS CT not
Caps. Mskee and his SUCCESSORS. with a
knowledge that an asVcegnen, had been made
With 4 tcrtrer owner suffered the plaintiH to
" ca and PIT expensive improvements on the
land Amounting 10 the value u 81 500. and
the inference We draw Is that he knew that
the plaiutif was expecting to reeSive deed
fer this land. II the knowledge thas the
ssreeGeas bad becn made cane 70 Mr.. N4kee
subsequent 10 his purchase this does not
weaken the ioyce u his sequieSccnrs in the
Improvements made by plaiasif.
Il IS urgcd upon US that the delay in SET
tliuS she matter indicates that no definite
agreement had ever been arrived at But as
far aS the plaintiffs dealings with the owucrs
previous te Mr.. Nskse are concerned. the
delay was certainly theirs and not his,
Mr.. Widem2nn SAYS be must have had a
6ozsu eouversat0ns with Mr.. Nsulc On tie
matter.
We think that the inference 10 IL drawn
froa Mr.. ?. y Makee'S statement that be gave
erders not TO cultivate Nauls's land Or have
anything 70 10 with il. IS that Up 10 TIA, time
the plantation had had possession Of Tie land.
This must he 50 OF there would Re no ueees-
siiy for these orders. We hardly think the
ecnfusicu in the identity Of these KaIo
patches among many others would be sufic-
lent 70 account for these nriers- Bat II
Maule had absndonsd the possession of these
patches 70 the plantation, Makee, desiring 10
repcdiats the agreement, would naturally
make such orders.
The transaction Of plaintiff with Mr.. {.
Brown in nortsasins his land is fully ex-
planned by Mr.. Brown who saws that plaintiff
told hin be had no title to his house lot but
agreed to substitute it for his KalC land
whenever he should get his deed
The validity Of plaintiffs title to the land to
Be given by him in exchange was questioned
At the hearing by the defendant. The proper
tine 10 make enquiry into this title was when
Negotiations for the exchange were pending,
but we are OF the opinion that the plaintiff
should be required 70 show his title TO the
satisfaction OF 4 Master Of this Court and II be
fails in this we cannO. compel the execution
Of the deed BY defendant.
The plaintiff now says lie Is willing 10 in
clGde. IN his deed Apanl one Of the Royal
Patent and the parcel Of 5-I00lhs Of IN acre
required by Capt. Makee in addition TO the
two aPan1s he originally agreed TO give
We think he should Be held to the otter
made.
On the well settled doctrine that parole
agreement to sell or exchange lands viii be
compelled 70 be executed, il il has been car
Tisi into effect with the knowledge and con-
sent OF the other contracting party SO that it
voald be against equity to rspudiate il, We
hold that the agreement q exchange in this
case should be ordered. 4 Decree in accor-
dance with this decision will he signed or
presentation by counsel.
A. 5 Hartwell for plaintiff T. " Hatch
for defendant.
Honolulu, March 10th, Iss3.