The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1885-03-04
3apaiialt 6azette.
WEDNESDAY,, MARCH 4 1856
Supreme Court OF the Hawaiian Islands -
Prem January, Term 1855. Jury waived.
AkrOxA vs.. KOHALA sreAR Co,
Before A~.fia ). OPINION.


On the 9th day Of August, 1879, what ap
pears 10 be lease in writing, from the defend
ant to the plaintiff, of certain land and premises
in Kohals, Hawaii, for the term Of three years
from date, at the monthly rental Of Sl2, was
executed and delivered TO the plaintiff by
II. johnson, who signs the instrument in the
name of defendant BY himself. At the time,
be was acting manager Of the plantation in the
absence Of Mr. Geo. c. Williams, manager, and
remained such acting manager Till the return
Of Williams in lss0. There were, in the all
sence Of Williams, two local directors whose
duty il was to confer with johnson about
plantation matters.
The instrument in terms gave plaintiff the
right to erect certain building on the land
and move another, and agreed that at the end
Of the lease the defendant would buy the new
house at a reasonable price. In pursuance of
this lease the plaintiff at once entered into pos
session, and moved one house and erected an
other, and occupied the premises and paid rent
till the return Of Mr. Williams, the manager,
in February. 1880, and soon thereafter was
informed by Mr.. Williams that his lease was
void, but was allowed to remain, and paid
rent as usual TO Williams, till be resigned as
manager in 1881, and thereafter continued TO
pay rept to Mr.. Chaplin, as manager. In May,
1852, ejectment was brought by defendant
against plaintiff, and thereupon an instrument
was executed between plaintiff and defend
ant, which recites that the plaintiff, in consid-
Grafton Of the discontiEuance and withdrawal
Of said suit, Tin eiectment) "doth hereby sur
render the said lease, and relinquish all claim
10 said premises or any part thereof 10y reason
Of said lease or by reason Of any right or claim
arising thereout or therefrom," and the plain
tiff further consents that he is tenant at will
Of de- PENDANT, removable on ten days no
tice, and agrees to pay rent on demand.
Thereafter, about May, 1851, the plaintiff
was elected by defendant from the premises
and thereafter demanded payment for said
building erected 10y him, or the right 10 remove
the same, which were refused and the plaintiff
brings suit.
The bylaws of the defendant provide as
follows:
Legal signature"
"The President and Treasurer shall sign all
oonyeyances and contracts, which are required
10y the laws Of this kingdom to be put on re
cord, and all such other documents mot of
record as require the company signature
They shall sign all certificates of stock
No notice Of this bylaw was brought home
TO the plaintiff, and he was not bound 10y it.
See Potter ON Corporations, Sec. li3. Tire
President and Treasurer were resident at HO-
nolulu, Oahu. and the books of the Company
were there kept. The plantation was on Ha-
wali, The evidence shows that the practice
Of the Company was for the President and
Treasurer TO execute all written contracts, in
Guiding leases. and that no actual authority
was given 10 the manager or acting manager
to execute leases like the one in suit. But the
law Law HFna not F.rn1,fl,f Wlafl,.r al.
lease was binding on the defendant depends on
whether its execution was within the apparent
SCOPE Of JoLnson's authority He was acting
manager, in charge Of large plantation No
notice lie shown TO plaintiff of any local trustees
appointed or acting. johnson assumed 10 sign
for the defendant. He was their general agent,
aud / shall hold that the execution Of this
lease was within the apparent scope of his
authority, and the lease was biz ling on de-
PENDANT
See Potter on Corporations, Sections 1859,
ls4.
Ii | should lie uverruled in this conclusion.
at all events, johnson had authority sufficient
TO uphold his verbal lease TO plaintiff for a
year, and the defendant was bound at least for
that term. See Taylor's Landlord and Tenant
Section u.
Plaintiff had a right 10 assume that johnson
could let him into possession and authorize
him 10 build as he did. Plaintiff acted on that
assumption, and entered and built the house,
for tie value Of which be brings suit. John
son assumed the right to make the lease as he
did. II he had no such right it operated as A
fraud on the plaintiff. What johnson did was
at least license to Akiona to enter and build
and the defendant is estopped from denying il,
The defendants high officers cannot remain in
Honolulu inactive, when valuable erections are
made on their land, with the knowledge of
their acting manager, and on his authority,
and afterwards deny his authority, and appro
pirate the erections, and refuse to pay for
them.
See Smiths leading cases, Vol. 3, DID. 566
aud $40, and cases cited. Upon the foregoing
grounds hold that when the instrument dated
May 6, lsS2, was made, the plaintiff, when he
should remove from the premises leased was
entitled TO pay for the house he had built
thereon. This was a valuable right. The
paper did not say that he released it. 1t was
couohed in general terms and the plaintiff can
not be supposed TO have intended to release If.
II 1t was go intended it should have been ex-
pressed, under well settled rules Of law.
The right TO compensation for the building
was the plaintiffs when he was elected from
siiS ANU 1he iiBht Vi IeluOfal ii Inc plalntln
had 1t, was separate one. His right to re-
cover here was not lost by his non removal of
the building before he was elected. He can
recover It's value upon the facts stated and
proved. Upon those facts it appears that the
building cost one thousand dollars.
The plaintiff may have Judgment for one
thousand dollars against defendants with costs,
A. 5. Hartwell for plaintiff; W. X. Castle for
defendant.
Honolulu, February Gath, lss5.