The Hawaiian gazette., 1884-12-31

- - -
made BY the chief defei
undes ! power Of sale.
The Argument before z
objections to The validis
lows:
Z" Frs. That as Lopez
or demand fer the possess
premises and chsttels, be
Torrance Of q condition pr
"Srusi. That the adve
Lopez, did not comply v
power.
"T'RirL. That the mann
sale, especially as regards
grossly unfair to the moyp
OF the implied condition
be conducted to the bighe
m0ztgaEors.n
"Forrfs. That defends
been attorney for the NOR
duties as trustee fer the
coming 4 purchaser u the
O. the nortgaged property
The power Of sale is int
the said party Of the thir
executors, administrators {
BY authorized and empo1
and take possession Of the
tels bereinbefore menticoe
AZ public auction, first
notice in the English and ]
II two newspapers pGblis
Honolulu, Of the time ard
Default was made in
FIRST in=tallmenI Of semi-s
and the defendant proceed
mortgage by public sale
sisted Of suniry parcels
chat.els described Is iolio-
or herd Of cattle and Ihei
At large IL Nauoa valley o
Island Of Oahu and beir
hundred head more or less
three bullock carts. eight
chains also fifty head Of
colts more or less and
running a. large in said J
and branded PIC, also
Mano1 and branded Ct, 1
Of cattle with thei- iucreas
running at large In said N
on the Island Of Oahu."
Mr. Justice Austin by "
heard in chambers, yhenc
this Court, sustained the
and third points Of eontroV
not sustaining it upon the !
The first objection to the
Is that there was no entry
the possession Of the mort
chattels.
To effect i valid sale u
directions Of the power mu
says Wells J, IN Cranstou
+63, and this is urquestio
for the defendants cite this
Roarty vs.. Mitchell ! Gray
think it does upon the poi
| power contained IN the FRS
cried entry and sale, on
notice given Of the time
| Court held that entry AZ tn
sufficient. In Roarty vs. "
Of the power was that
Possession Of said premise
dispose ofthe same after q
say that It appears upo
that no possession was )
made upon the premises no
for entry OF possession mac
entry or possession or whai
equivalent, ! demand for I
tusal were conditions prece
no valid sale could be mad
Of sale in the deed" Tn
power in the case 1t bar &C
above in requiring entry a
not that the sale be hell
Both cited cases require et
gesti0u in the latter that
might be equivalent.
The proceedings upon
property without suit a.
| Chapter XVIII Of the act
provides that when a pow
tanned in q mortgage, upon
dition, the mortgages may
intention to forscloss by pu
weeks before advertising Il
perty for sale, and alsu
AMI do all such acts as are
quirsd by the power contai
age." He is, thirdly, to
gistrar Of CouEeyances, \
after said copy Of the notil
6davit that he has in all
with the acquisitions Of the
relation to all things to be ,
selling the property" II
Of the power Of sale in ia
and possession. The pa
this a condition precedent
without regard 70 any stat
It; SO, if it had been made
sale should be on the m
the statute not it requirin
other place would not be val
sidsred that the statute req
weeks publication Of int,
abrCgates the condition prec
have made II, that there
entry and possession taken,
Tides that besides such 4
the mortgages shall also gi
Do all such acts as are auth
by the power.
The evidence IN this c
PENDANT mortgage only
due and threatened to f0reG
to forecloss can only be COZ
take all the steps requiri
closure, among which was
demand for debt due cauno
entry or taking possession.
we bold that the sale Of Ii
invalid upon the first II
How far this Is applicable
chattels will be considered
third objection.
In regard to the second
sale made 90 the twentieth
publication Of the notice
auce with the condition /
first giving three weeks no
place Of sale, we hold that
ty-oue days was requisite
which seem TO support the
are applicable to cases VIII
notice is required to be a
times in a weekly uewspapt
wise when 4 publication is
tain period Of time, as in IL
weeks notice." not after
weekly publications. For
and citation Of authorities c
70 the opinion Of Mr.. Justic
The learned Justice ais
on the third objection to th
made In 4 fair and adv
This objection applies onl.
chattels.
Il will not be conIruyertl
qHires the mortgage in
power to use discretion in
reasonable manner, not to
OF to sacrifice his estate.
Section 500.
We must apply this phi
and circumstances Of every
This sale was held at an
city Of Honolulu. So far a
concerned we have 10 rea
the sale in town was a di
mortgsgors- Il is II accor
tom Of long standing. 1t y
eat and a disadvantage in
conduct the sale Of real est;
especially If there were 81
distance from toxin and
Important sales and agcliol
IN Honolulu Of estates stu
the kingdom. And If the
long enough there are ma
support this practice. Hor
quarters q capital and bus
Try Of deeds, the Land ofic
| Generals olce are here