The Hawaiian gazette., 1884-04-23
3aluaiiatr Gazttte.
WEDNESDAY, April %, 1854
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands,
In Banco.
MAHuKAInu ct AL VS.. H1kAALASI Ell Al
OPINION ON REAneuNENr.

Before Judd, c. j., MeCNily and ARstiH.J.J. Opia-
i0H Of bhe Court BY AEsfiR,J.
The plaintiffs counsel now claims that this
Court has no power 10 entertain reargument
Of the case, because il has already made de-
cision of it, which ID final and conclusive, un-
der Article GO of the Constitution. which de-
clares that: "The decisions of the Supreme
"Court when made by 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, lis
highest court, and provides that "auy Eve
members Of the Court shall form quorum,
"and the concurrence of four shall be neces-
"sary to a decision"
These provisions are similar. It is not re-
quisite 10 say in order to render final the de-
cision Of a majority of the highest Court of
country, that it is final. That follows as a
matter of course unless otherwise expressly
stated. 1t must necessarily be binding upon
all men. But to say that manifest errors and
mistakes, in what has the form Of a final judg-
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 or not must also rest
1t 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 mer-
its we are constrained to believe that too
much stress was laid upon the supposed adj
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 patentee
But she died in 1860, and when the deed Of
1866 was taken, her heir the plaintiff had been
the real owner for SIX years.
The deed Of 1866 ignores and denies Nihoa's
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 Nihoa.
Acts denying the title of Nihoa by the
grantee in the deed Of 1866 had been done, in
sufficient, it may be, 10 show disseisin, but
constituting claim OF title as against her.
The deed was taken to be an acknowledgements
of the title of Nihoa, but it in fact might be
taken as a denial of it.
We are also on further thought and research,
inclined to believe that even had the deeds
recItals been as the Court supposed, the effect
thereof was taken too strongly against the de-
PENDANT. See &c Cal. 535 0. Cannon VS.. Stock
man; Jackson vs.. Sears, 10 John. r. 436, AL.
We have examined with care the argument
OF the plaintiffs counsel as 10 proof of the ma
ture of the possession required to be deemed
adverse. In many of the United States there
are special statutes defining what shall con-
stitute adverse possession in different cases,
In New York there is such a statute. There
Is none such in this country Under the stat
ute Of New York we think the adverse possess
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 las
been said, the nature of the land in question is
such as to require the most meagre proof of
acts of possession TO ripen into title. We are
convinced that, as found by the Chief Justice,
there was sufficient proof of title in the defen-
dant by adverse possession.
Because of the mistake to which we have
referred, we have concluded to reverse our
decision, and to affirm the judgment of the
Court below.