The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-01-17
suprene Court of the Hawaiian Islands
In Banco.
HIS Majesty halakzua and Her Majesty
hsplolani v G. W hezweamahi et A.
Before Judd C-J, McCuIly and Austin ] j

i jury was waived IN this case and II
came before Us IN the first instance by con
sent II vacation upon an asTeed statement
OF tsct.
II is an action Of ejectment 10 recover
the possession OF certain land situate 81
Puulens- Msnoa- District Of hons IN the
lslsrd Of Oahu described IN ROYAL Patent
IssS on land Commission Award $50 10
hauruohus (wl.
The plaintiff claim to recover. for Her
Majesty hEpiolzni- ss grantee Of the hneal
descendant Of the her OF haunuohua-
Ihe defence / q general denial. and the
statute Of Limitations The agreed state
rneni OF facts : as follows:
The premises named N plaintiffs cow
plant were awarded by Iand Commission
Av1rd No. 6450to hzRnuOhua fwl: that sid
hsunuohEa died II the year-1S49 without
issue leaving her surviving husband W L
MoshonuA that sid AIoshCnua took ont
Letters OF Administration upon the estata
Of said haunuohua. Mzrch 18th. 1872 thst
sud hoehouua died IN the year 1878 never
having fled any accounts as such Admin
ist-stor- and never having been discharged
trusn sad trust that said defendants sre
the heirs at law OF said Mcehonus. and are
n possession OF said premises that ka-
hanssuvsi hanoa wi. Is the nearest blood
re!stlye OF said hsuuuOhua- now living
hIy6i was the father OF haJuuohua, he
kulalono was the mother OF haunuohua
hIwai by Helene had daughter hanoa
who was the mother Of ksmahiai l7yl who
was the mother OF hahanaauwai Hanoa
that the plaintiff hspiOlani. hss purchased
said premises from said kahanaauw;i ks-
nos and now holds al the title Of the
lsttsr thereto.
Ii is admitted Hsnoa WAS living IN Ho-
nolulu when haunuOhua died II : also
ssreed. by and between the parties 10 this
submission and admitted thst- the rec1ri
and Proceedings IN the PrObate Court IN
the matter OF the estate of kaTnuohua w
OF March 18Th 4 D 1852 and also the
Record II the estate Of Moehouua- more
especially the claim Of HIS Majesty Kala-
kzus- fled Nay 9Th 1872 and proceedings
Hereunder IN sid record and the record
and prooeediDSs n the two suits II eject
ment- wherein hapiolani. Queen C0nS1rt.
i plaintiff. and keavezmahi q a an. de
fendzuts- fled respectively in March. a D.
ISL and February. 4 D. 1SS3 be made
psrf Of the recori Of submission for the
consideration OF the Court
1tis also admitted thst " l. Moehouua
was IN possession Of the lands IN DISPUTE
forming the estate Of hsunuohua fr1m the
18th OF March. A- D 1872 and that he and
his heirs have continued in possession
thereof. 70 the present time. excepting the
land OF haha ~ Waikk, Of which plain
TIFF clam 70 have been IN possession since
the month Of May. a D. ISS2~
Fnon these facts We think il must l.s
presumed that Her Majesty the plaiuiiff +
the grantee Of the hneal descendant 0f the
lawful heir OF haunuohua-T The ilegiti-
mscy Of her sTzntor or her ancestors !
not TO Be assumed unless clearly proved,
and there was no such proof
The substantial question IN the case 5
whether the defence of the statute % limi-
tstions Is nsde out
Under the agreed facts i must be a.
sumed after the marriage Of W L Noe
hcnuz TO hsunuohuz in ISaS that lyy force
u the statute OF 1875. he took and held
possession Of the land claimed a. her hus
hand and thst he held possession thereof
st the time Of her death and thence TIL his
death IN 1878: and that thereafter his
heirs held and now hold the possession
thereof II this possession after the death
If kzunnohus- was adverse 10 the PLAIN
tlfss their right q entry was long s1nce
tolled- and they cannot recover.
The plaintiff claims that by virtue of the
appointment Of Mcehonua ss administTa-
tor Of the real and personal estate of ka
unuohus his wife. he became 8 trustee for,
the plaintiffs and those under whom they
claim and that thereafter he remained
Their trustee I'll his death. and that, there
fore his possession Of the land Wa never
adverse 70. but was N accordance with the
plaintiffs title
Il Is familiar principle thzt trustee
VII nos N general Be- held - take any
larger estste than the nature Of his trust
requires
See = wsShbyun on Real Property. p.
AS
II the administrator Kzs such trustee
and was thereby entitled to the possession
Il the property In suit. Il wss only tempo
rzrily. and t0- the puPoses q paying
dstts and subject to this duty the heir Was
entitled 70 immediate possession- and TO
the reoeipt Of the rents and profits II the
her were n pos>essson 81 the Geath q the
ancestor. We fesl sure that the law would
nOt slow the administrator TO Olst him
from the possession except upon pstiron
before the Probzte C01T1 showing the Ne
cessIty Of selling the property 70 pay debts
In the proceedings II the Puobate C0arI
n this case no such peiItl1n WIS made nor
~zs any iDdebteiness shown and the
proofs show thzt there no personal pro
perry W L Moehouuz Ess n p0ssession
when be spplied to Be msde sdministrzt0r-
Whzt he then claimed to b. the nzt-re Of
his possession and whist trzlst he then IN
tended to assume are 10 be determined 5y
whz; was then ssid and done.
TIE petition to- sd1ninistrz-ion and the