The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-04-23
9aluaiiarr 6azettr.
WEDNESDAY, April %. 1854.
supreme Court OF the Hawaiian Islands--
In Bnneo-
MAnrkAIru1 II Al vs.. HIkAALANI II Al.
or1SIox on REaReuNESr.

B,,s,, Jrfs. c. J.. NrcHfiy a,s A',sfin.J.J. opis-
iga q the Covri By ArsfiH,J
The plsintif-s counsel nov claims that this
Court has no power to entertain a reats'iment
Of the ease, because il has already made de-
cisiou Of it, which Is final and conclusive, III
der Article 60 Of the Constitution. when de-
elares that: 'sThe decisions Of the supreme
Court when made by a majority Of the jus
''tices thereof, shall be final and conclusive
upon all parties"
The Constitution Of New York provides for
seven Judges Of the Court Of Appeals, its
highest court, and provides that ANY fye
members Of the Court shall form quorum,
.'and the concurrence Of four shall be neces-
''sary to a decision"
These provisions are similar. Il IS not re-
quisite 10 say in order to render final the de-
cision OF a majority Of the highest Court Of 4
country, that it is final That follows as a
matter Of course unless otherwise expressly
stated Il must necessarily be binding upon
all men. But to say that manifest errors and
mistakes. in what has the form OF final ludg-
ment, cannot be corrected by the highest
Court in its discretion, when seasonably
brought to its notice, is unreasonable, and
might work great injustice. And whether the
application is seasonable OF not must also rest
in the discretion of the highest tribunal.
II has been uniformly and we think wisely
so held in the State Of New York, and we
shall So hold.
Upon re-examining the question on its msr-
its we are constrained 10 believe that too
much stress was laid upon the supposed ad-
mission BY the deed taken in 1866 Of the title
Of the plaintiff.
There was evidence, which the Court below
held sufficient. OF adverse possession for near
" ten years up 10 the taking Of that deed.
The plaintiff claims as the heir Of Nihoa who
was daughter of Alapai, the original paisntee.
But she died in 1860, and when the deed Of
ls66 was taken, her heir the plaintiff had been
the real owner fer SIX years.
The deed Of ls66 ignores and denies Mica $
right, and the grAntors in the deed claim to be
the heirs Of Alapai. Instead Of admitting,
the deed directly denies the plaintiff title OBJ
tanned through Nina.
Acts denying the title Of Nihoa by the
grantee in the deed Of 1866 had been done, in
sufficient it may be, to show disseisin, but
constituting claim OF title as against her.
The deed was taken to be an Acknowledgment;
Of the title Of Nihoa, bu. it in fact might be
taken as denial Of it,
We are also on further thought and research,
inclined 10 bClleFe maj even had the deco :
reCitals been as the Court supposed, the effect
thereof was taken too strongly against the de-
PENDANT See sc Cal. 535 Q. Cannon VS.. Stock
man: jackson vs.. Sears, 10 John. r. 1876, AL.
We have examined with care the argument
Of the plaintiffs counsel as to proof Of the ma
ture Of the possession required to be deemed
adverse. In many o. the United States there
are special statutes defining what shall con-
stitute adverse possession in different cases,
In New York there is such statute. There
Is none such in this country. Under the stat
ute Of New York we think the adverse posses
sion would hardly be made out in this case
Many OF the decisions quoted cannot be under
standingly read, or be surely relied on as APP
plieable here without reading the special stat
utory law which applies to them. As has
been said, the nature Of the land in question is
such as to require the most meagre proof Of
acts Of possession 10 ripen into title. We are
convinced that, as found by the Chief y Justice,
there was sufficient proof Of title in the deieu-
dant by adverse possession.
Because of the mistake to which We have
referred, we have concluded TO reverse Out
decision. and to affirm the judgment Of the
Court below.
A. FRANCIS JUDD,
BENZ. Il. AUSrIN.