The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-01-23

the snbicct Of this suit. WIS commonly called
known and reprted 10 be a Crown land, or wa
derived by said keelikolani as heir to her fAthei
| and brother aforesaid. That BY deed dated Aue
| llth, lSSe, Claus Sprcckcis conveyed TO the De
fendAnts rs such commissioners all his estate IL
the said premises And that the respondent claim
to hold the premises against both the complainant,
hy vir;ne Of Al Ae; Of the Legislature OF JanuAr,
ssru- lSsa, oatitlcd an Act TO relieve the Roya
domain from membranes aud TO render ih'
same inalicnahlc
The complainant Keohkolani died on the Nh
May, ISL and C. Il. Bishop and II. W. Never
executors Of her will, make this suggestion on tn,
9Th October, and ask that the suit be continued.
will eonfne myself 10 a brief statement OF IN,
conclusions resehed by me in this case.
l. The land in question comprising thu premises
formerly known as Honolulu Hale used n,
The government Offices FOR many years, is no, in
the bis, Of lands reserved by kamehameha Ill. fol
himself and his successors hut was awarded G.
HIM by the Land Commission upon application
and evidence taken.
II. II was, therefore, the private land of Kane
hameha Ill, and was unaffected by the instru
ment OF reservation Of March 5, lSts and the Act
of 9Th June, 1875, confirming the same, and cams
TO kamehamehs ~. as private land.
III. On the desth Of HamchAmeha ". in
testate land of this character would descend no,
TO the successor 20 the throne but TO the heirs al
law Of the King, who are now represented by the
plaintiffs.
". But kamohalncha ". had. IN his lifetime
conveyed this land % William Webster by deed
dated 18th March. 1876, and Mr. Webster had
rAised money for HIS Majesty by mortgage upon
this land. The mortgage presented shows II was
released, upon payment Of the amount secured. by
the administrators OF the estate Of kamehameha
".
V On the 18Th October. ISsS, Mr.. Webster being
then deceased the executor OF his will. X. Mofitt
released the promises 10 tho then Commissioner
of Crown Lands. This was Intellectual 10 convey
the legal title which W. Webster had for this was
in his devisee But the title outstanding in another
tF
soners Of Crown Lands take nothing by the
executors, release.
vi. 50 fur then. the Compliments are entitled
TO relief as against the Crown Commissioners who
are in possession under claim OF title. But there
is urged in avoidance of keelikolanis claim hei
conveyance TO Claus Spreckols, the interest con
viewed being now held by respondents. Docs this
deed include the premises IN controversy by II
Keelikolani CONVEYS for a valuable consideration
70 Claus SprCckels all and singular the several
lands reserved by His Majesty kamehamehs "
to be his own private property and mentioned and
specified and declared by a certain Act passed on
the 9TH June, 1854, aud commonly known as Crown
Lands, together with all rights easements and ap-
purtenanees to the said lands, any, either OF
them belonging land all my estate. right title and
interest both at law and IN equity Of IN and 70 the
said lands and OF all the other lands corassoSsi.
oIilri known reputed 10 be CfpsrH Lssds, or q
be part, parcel or member thereof, and whether
belonging TO me os to which may be now en-
titled, either as heir to His said Majesty kameha
meha the Third or TO their late Maiesties Kameha,
meha the ", Kamehamena the V, my father His
HighnoSs the late NJ. hekuanaoa, or in any other
manner or right whatsoever
The language above used Is broad enough q
cover the land in question, for it was commonly
called, known and repGted TO be Grown land,
and such land keehkolani conveys her rights in
TO Mr.. Spreckels whether entitled to them heir
Of kamehameha Ill. " or V or of kekuanaoa.
The evidence is that all tie lands which kamsha-
meha " had whether in the reserved list of lsiS
or lands which came to him IN any other way were
treated by Webster as Crown Lands, and that the
premises IN dispRte were taken possession of by
Gov. Dominis as Crown Lands after the Act OF
1861 passed. and it has ever since been leased and
treated as such. Queen Emma herself says she
did not know 1t was not Grown Land until recent
" so informed.
The general rule is clear as to construction OF
deeds that the meaning and intention OF the par.
ties themselves should be ascertained il possible
from the instrument and from the whole instru.
ment.
2Greenleafs Cruise, p. as, 2l9.
Another important rule of construction is that
"wherp the lands are first described generally
and afterwards particular description Is added
that shall restrain the general words"
2Greeuleafs Cruise, p. 3t5.
1t is iumatcrlai whether the particular descrip-
iion follows or precedes the general words.
Where there is q particular recital in deed
and general words Of release are afterwards in
serted. the generality of the words shall be quail
fed by the recital 2Grconleafs Cruise, p 3Ot.
General words shall be aptly restrained accord-
refer Brooms Legal MaXims, p SOL,
POthier says; However general the terms may
be in which an agreement is conceived, II only
comprises those things respecting which it appears
the contracting parties proposed TO contract and
not Others which they never thought Of" l Poth.,
Obi, y. IS.
The leading case is Moore VS. Magrath. Cow
per's Il. O. decided BY Lord Mansfield in IVA. See
also Lyman vs.. Clarke, . Mass, rs. Willis VS..
Ferris, ; johnson, S35 345. The question in every
case is what was intended to be conveyed
But this land was not Crown land in the sense
that it descended to the successors of the throne
and it was not affected by this Limitation. Did
keelikolani intend to convey anything but her
supposed claim TO the Crown land 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 ana entailed, it were to
the SOyereigus of Hawaii. But it may be objected
that she had no 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 so the land in dispute and other lands
under the same title, coming TO her by descent
through kamehameha ", and NJ. Eekuanaoa and
kamehRmeha V. were the only lands of which she
had title TO convey. The answer is obvious, her
Intention gathered from the deed as whole, was
to convey to Mr.. Spreokels her interest and claim
whether valid or invalid, TO the Crown lands, and
not 20 convey all property inherited by her from
her father her royal half brother. TO hold that
this deed, by force of the language employed, in
cludes piece of land which came to Reelikolani
by inheritance truIu hekuaALlAuA VINO inherited II
from kamehameha ". who owned it as private
estate. merely because II had been called and re-
puted to be Grown land would compel me to
hold that it includes land derived by keelikolani
from kokuanAoa, which came to him by inherit
ance from NictOrin hnmamulu or from any other
source. provided It had been known or called
whether enormously or not is immateriaD Grown
land.
As l have slid, this land was not Crown land,
descendible to the next king, but the property of
the King rs Alexander Lihoiho and keelikolani
did not intend to convey any such land to Mr..
Spreckels.
lieye the Royal domain, etc, east the duty upon
the administrator OF kamehameha ". to exhaust
all the private lands of hRmehameha ". before
drawing the money appropriated by the Legisla-
ture for the payment OF his debts and as the ad-
ministrator did not sell this land supposing it to
be Crown land, the heirs OF kamehAmehA ~. are
now estopped TO claim the land, for if the admin,
istrator had done his duty he would have sold it.
But the grant OF the Legislature was for the
benefit of the reigning Sovereign and cannot see
how the heirs OF the private estate of the King are
bound on any equitable doctrine to surrender it
for a consideration which did not move to them
from the respondents.
The equitable lien which the government may
have upon the land by virtue of its grant to KA-
mehameha V. having relieved 1t of a mortgage is
another queston-but the government is not I'M
pleaded nor does it hold possession of the premises
Upon a careful review Of the whole case, am of
the opinion that the compliments are entitled to
the relief prayed for.
A. FRANc1s JUDI,
Chief Justice and Chancellor.
A. $. HaFtgeil, W. Il. Castle and +. NJ. Hatch,
for Plffs., Z. Preston, for Defts.
r~rr~ len