The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1884-01-26


missioners Of Crown Lands take nothing Dy the
executors release.
VI. So far. then, the complainants are entitled
10 relief as against the Crown Commissioners, who
are in possession under claim Of title But there
is urged in evidence Of Keelikolanis claim her
conveyance TO Claus Spreckels, the interest con-
veyed being now held by respondents Does this
deed include the premises III controversy? BY 1t
Keelkolani conveys. for a valuable consideration,
to Claus Spreckels, all and singular, the several
lands reserved to His Majesty kamehameha ~,
10 be his own private property and mentioned and
specified and declared by certain Act passed on
7tb June 1S48, and commonly known as Crown
Lands together with all rights, easements and ap-
purtenances to the said lands, any or either of
them belonging, land all my estate right, title
and interest both at law and in equity Of in and to
the said lands and of all other lands commonly
called. known reputed to be Cro1rn Lands or to
be part parcel or member thereof, and whether be-
longing TO me 10 which may be now entitled,
either as heir to his said Majesty Kamehameha the
Third OF their late Majesties Kamehameha the ",
Kamehameha the V, my father the late NJ. Kekua-
naoa in any other name or right Whatsoever
The language above used is broad enough TO cover
the land in question for it was commonly called,
known and reputed to be - Crown Land, and such
land Keekolani conveys her rights in to Mr.. Claus
mehameha III, ", or V, or Of Kekuanaoa. The evil
idence is that ali the lands which Kamehameha "
had whether in the Reserved List of 1S48 or lands
which came him in any other way were ted by
Webster rs - Crown Lands, and that the premises
in dispute were taken possession Of by Governor
Domins as Crown Lands after the Act of 1864
passed and they have since been leased and
treated as srch. Queen Emma herself says she did
not know ii was not Crown Land until recently
informed.
The general ruIe is clear As to construction of
deeds that the meaning and intention Of the parties
themselves ahould be ascertaincd if possible from
the instrument and from the whole instrument.
GreenIeaf's Cruise, p 295 ,299 Another important
rule of construction is that - where the lands are
first described generally, and afterwards particu-
lar description is added, that shall restrain the
general words" , Greenleaf's Cruise P. 34s.
1t is unessential whether the particular descrip
ton follows precedes the general words, . Where
there is particular recital in deed and general
words of release are afterwards inserted, the gen
erality of the words shall be qualified by the
recital 2 Greenleaf's Cruise, p. 30I.
." General words shall be aptly restrained ac-
cordng to the subject matter OF person to which
they refer Broome's Legal Maxims P. 275.
Pothier says g However general the terms may
be in which an agreement is conceived, it only
comprises those things respecting which it appears
the contracting parties proposed to contract and
not as to others which they never thought Of l
Poth., Obi, p. 50.
The leading case is Moore vs. Magratha, Cow
per's r. 9, decided by Lord Mansfield in 1774.
See also Lyman Clark, Mass, 235 Willes vs.
Ferris Johnson, 335, 345. The question in
in every is, what intended to be conveyed?
But this land was not Crown Land in the sense
that ii descended to the successors of the throne
kolani intend to convey anything but her sup
posed claim to the Crown Lands L think not
She was not bound By the mistake into which
not only she, but her cO-complainant and many
others, had fallen in supposing that the land
in question was in the reserved list, and entalled
as it were, to the soyereigDs of Hawaii. But 1t
NAV be objected that she had valid claim to
| the Crown Lands for they passed to the heir and
successor to the throne, which she was not, and
not to the heir-at-law, and the land in dispute
| and other lands under the title going to her
! bv descent through Kamehameha ". and NJ. Keku-
| anaoa and Kamehameha were the only lands of
which she had title to convey. The answer is
| obvious. Her intention gathered from the deed
| as a whole was to convey to Mr. Spreckels her
| interest and claim, whether valid invalid, to
| the Crown Lands, and not to convey all property
inherited bv her from her father her royal half
| brother.
To hold that this deed by force of the language
| employed includes piece of land which came to
| Keelikolani by inheritance from Kekuanaoa who
| inherited it from Kamehameha ", who owned it
as private estate merely because had been called
| and reputed to be . Crown Land, would compel
! me to hold that it includes land derived by Kee-
| hkolani from Kekuanaoa which came to him by in
| heritance from Victoria Kamamaln. from any
other source, provided it had been known or
I
| - Crown Lands
As have said, this land not Crown Land
descendable to the next King, but the property of
! the King as Alexander Lholiho and Keelkolani
did not intend to convey any such lands to Mr..
| Sprechels.
But it is urged that the Act of 1866, to relieve
the Royal Domain, etc, cast the duty upon the
administrator of Kamehameha " to exhaust all
| the private lands of Kamehameha ", before draw
ing the money appropriated by the Legislature for
the payment of his debts and the adminis tor
did not sell this land, supposing it to be Crown
| Land, the heirs of Kamehameha " now
estopped to claim the land for if the adminisra
had done his duty he would have sold it, But the
grant Of the Legislature for the benefit Of the
| reigning Sovereign, and cannot how the heirs
of the private estate, bound upon any equitable
doctrine TO surrender it for any consideration
which did not to them from the respondents.
The equitable lien which the Government may
have upon the land by virtue of its grant to
| Kamehameha v having relieved the same of mort
| gage, is another question but the Government is
not impeaded, does it hold possession of the
premises
Upon careful review of the whole case, am
Of the opinion that the complanants entitled
to the relief prayed for.
A. F. JUDD,
Chancellor
a. S. Hartwell, w II. Castle and F. NJ Hatcl
for complainants.
f. Preston for respondents.
January 10, 1884.