The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-03-17
SUPREME COURT.
Important Decisions Rendered by the
Chief Justice.

John McKeague represented by his guar
dian, 7. A. Lloyd VS.. Alexander Kennedy
The suit was brought in equity to cancel the
mortgage made to defendant by John Nc
Keague. By the allegations it appears tina {
plaintiff aad defendant were equal partners
in the Heeia sugar plantation, on which
partnership defendant owed plaintiff SIS, 900.
February 20, 1879, defendant conveyed to
plaintiff one-fourth Of the plantation-i. e..
one-half his partnership share-for SIS, 900;
plaintiff to assume like share of the in
debtedness of the plantation, which then
amounted to $70,00O. On July l. 1881
plaintiff and defendant made a mortgage
to H. Macfarlane 4 Co. to secure payment,
! in all, of $40, 900. At that time the partner
ship owed H. Hackfeld & Co., on account of
the plantation, Sal ,7O4 20. secured by a
mortgage dated September 80. 1879.
On September "a, 1881, defendant sold his
remaining one-fourth of the plantation to
! plaintiff for $50, 900. Plaintiff gave defend
ant u mortgage of the plantation to secure
| payments of notes representing S54, 500
$50, 600 purchase money and 81, 500 balance
of sale of the first one-fourth. On June 80,
| 1882. plaintiff sold the plantation to the
Heeia Sugar Company, a corporation. This
conveyance was afterwards annulled by the
Supreme Court in equity, on the ground of
| fraudulent represen tatiOns, and mental in
capacity of plaintiff.
The relief prayed for in this suit was that
the mortgage and notes for $40, 900 be de-
clared void and delivered up for cancella-
| ton.
The Chief Justice alluded to the fact that
much of the evidence in this case was en-
braced in that of McKeague VS.. Neisser ct
! al, when it had been fully discussed, and
that he was of the opinion that McKeague
was, at the time of the transaction between
him and defendant. which resulted in the
mortgage now attacked, in weak condition
of mind, rendering him incapable of passing
correct judgment on important business
matters.
This mental condition of McKeague had
been noticed and commented upon by
others. among them DIR. Kennedy, the Dis
trict Physician, and witnesses who had had
business dealings with him.
| In a case decided by His Honor July 3,
| 1884, he had occasion to define the principles
upon which equity will interfere where great
| advantage is taken Of a weak intellect to
secure an uncomfortable bargain with
grossly disprOportionate consideration. He
found such circumstances in the present
case, and was of the opinion that the mort
gage under consideration should be can
celled. A decree was given accordingly.
A. s. Hartwell and w. R. Aus tin, for plain tiff;
F. NJ. Hatch. for defendant.
| In the case Of NJ. s. Grinbaum & Co. VS.
the Hesia Sugar Company, G. NJ. Cooke H i.
Macfarlane & Co., and Alexander Kennedy,
before Chancellor Judd, in equity, His
Honor rendered q decision on the 18th in
slant.
| This was, suit brought to ascertain
| whether a certain mortgage to H. Macfar-
lane Il Co. covers and is secured upon the
lease of the ahupuaa Of Heeia. This lease
was for the term OF thirteen years from
| October 1, 1884, and would not, by it's terms,
expire until October, 1894. After the mort
gage was given, the plantation changed
hands, and new lease was obtained by the
new owners (the Heeia Sugar Company of
California; for twenty-five years, from
! October 1, 1892 at an increased rental. The
evidence showed that Macfarlane did not
know OF this new lease, and the cancellation
OF the old one at the time they were exc
cuted. He paid the increased rental
demanded by the new lease, and this, 1t was
commended, amounted to a consent and mott
ficatiOn of the whole transaction. The Chief
Justice was of the opinion that Macfarlane' 3
payment Of rent on the new lease was not to
be taken as a consent that he should lose his
security the cid lease. In the decree of
foreclosure, the Macfarlane mortgage is to
be held to cover the old lease of 1866, and its
renewal of the LIST October, 1869, but not the
new lease Of January, 1888.
The next point, and one of more difficulty,
was, whether the advances made by II. Mac
farlane & Co. to John McKeague after
Kennedy sold out, or to the Heeia Sugar
Company after their purchase from Nc
Keague, we'll advances made by G.. w.
Macfarlane 4 Co. subsequent to the transfer
of the agency to that firm, are covered by
the mortgage to H. Macfarlane & Co. After
reviewing the evidence in the case, and
citing authorities, the Chief Justice rendered
his opinion to the effect that the plain tiffs
having full knowledge that large proper
ton Of the sums advanced under the Fl
Macfarlane & Co. mortgage was advanced
by G. W. Macfarlane, equity would not per.
NIT them to dispute the same.
A decree of foreclosure in accordance with
law and the principles set forth in the de
cision will be signed on presen ia ton, and {
reference was ordered to Master to ascer
tain the amounts due on the several mort
cages.
decision was also given by the Chic
} Justice in the snit of r. A. McFie vs. II
; Haekfeld & Co., to recover IS, 165 "a from
defendants of items of account current
claimed by plaintiff on the basis of hi
understanding Of the contract for the sale o
5 the Kilauea Sugar Company The Chan
cellor found that plaintiff. under that con
, tract, is entitled to 6,729 46 of the amour
claimed.
r The bark Lady Lampson came into tia
harbor yesterday right before the wind, i
being from he south, The w. II. DimonC
and Meteor are ready to go to sea, and thei
captains are looking for the trade winds t.
help them out. Tomorrow the Jenni