The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1885-04-22
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands
In Equity.
W. NJ. GIBSON, J. NJ. KErENA AND CHLs. II.
JurD. CoNN'Rs oF CRowS LANDS, VS.. J.
II. SorEH AND BTsHor & Co.

The bill sets forth that the compliments
are, entitled, The Commissioners Of Crown
Lands, officers provided for by Act Of January
,, ls6j. That the Commissioners on the 9th
day OF December, A. D. lssO, were II. A. p.
Carter, J. S. Walker and the same Charles II.
Judd, plaintiff. who ut said date executed q
lease Of certain premises, of which they were
then in possession, as crown land property, and
which had been in the possession OF the Crown
Land Commissioners for seventeen years pre-
vluusly, unto II. +. Whitney and J. W. Rob
ertsun. This lease passed by assignment to
Bishop & Co, who entered into possession.
by certain judgments Of the Court It was
determined that the premises in question we're
not Crown land estate, and the defendant as
signees were eyicted. They then brought ac-
ton against the present commissioner, these
plaintiffs, for breach of covenant Of the lease
for quiet possession, and obtained Judgment
for the sum Of eight Thousand dollars. The
defendant, J. II. Soper, Marshal of the King
dom, now threatens TO levy upon, and seize,
and sell the private property Of Charles II.
Judd, one Of the plaintiffs, to satisfy an e1ecu-
ton in favor Of Bishop & Co. for amount OF
this judgment.
The prayer Of the bill is that the Cont will
decree that the entry Of the judgment made in
the said action be modified in so far that said
record shall show that the defendants ia said
action ,uf coveuan) are not liable under the
said Judgment except in their representative
capacity as such Commissioners Of Crown
Lands aud that the judgment shall not operate
as a lien upon the private property Of the com-
plainanis; and that the deiendent Soper, who
IL Marshal Of the kingdom, and who has been
erUolned pcgdsHic iHc, he perpetually cujOined
from making levy as above.
The answer substantially admits the alleCa
uous Of fact III the bill ard claims that the
cumpiainauis are liable 10 satisfy the Judgment
personally aud ont Of their private property.
The lease IN question is exhibited, and the
Judgment is transcribed in the answer.
The question Of Jurisdiction is raised in ar
Eumeut, and is the first matter to be deter
mined. The Court cannot assume any iuris-
dieiiUu except upon cases and principles which
clearly Justify lite interposition. Nor will an
allegation or the want Of All allegation of iuris-
diciion OF the subject affect the question.
story's Eq. pleaiings, Sec. 81. Nor, appre-
bend would the Court fail to consider the cues
ton OF jurisdiction irrespective Of demurrer,
plea or argument, and without regard TO the
consent ofparties or waiver Of objection. Did.
Sec. 10.
The Cour, iu equity is here asked to decree
a certain amendment to be made in the entry Of
a judgment made 10y the Court Of common law,
and having taken Jurisdiction Of that matter 10
eujoin the proceedings being taken under Tat
Judgment The Court in equity will not deal
with the Courts Of law otherwise than as dis
tinct tribunals, however it may he that the
equity powers and the common Law powers
are vested in the same Justices. The limits
OF the several jurisdictions must be observed.
1t lie a principle Of equity Jurisprudence
Shich has been incorporated IN our Statute
concerning equity Jurisdiction, found on page
$50 Of Compiled Laws, that it is given in
cases where there is not plain, adequate and
complete remedy at the common Law, or il in
matters where the jurisdiction Of the Courts Of
law and equity is entirely concurrent, the ad-
ludicatiou Of the Court of law is conclusive
npon the Courts Of equity. StOry's Eq. Jur.
SeciiUn 1873
The matter Of amending the judgment Of