The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-05-14
Dissenting Opinion By Hr. Justice
Dale

Dissenting Opinion By N,. Justice
Dole.
| doubt the correctness of the decree
appealed from, with regard to the de-
PENDANT Mana. No evidence was
taken and the inference from the bill
and answer that the deed from the
Kaaukais had not been delivered to
Mana when the plaintiff, Kailaa, first
applied to him for the return of the
land, appears to me to be based upon
Insufficient foundation. The bill in
section 10, alleges that the defendant,
5. NJ. Kaaukai told the plaintiff that
he chad sold the land to Mana, de-
PENDANT herein, and given him, said
Mana, defendant, deed of said prem
ises." Mana, in the answer alleges,
at is true, as stated in the 10th sec
ton of the bill, that he did receive a
deed from 5. NJ. Kaaukai and j. e.
Kaaukai, two of the defendants, for
the land in question" These state
ments clearly to period previous
to the first application by the plain
tiff to Mana to return the land. If
it was Il fact that the deed was de-
livered to Mana at that time, the title
passed thereby, and he was an limo
cent purchaser, so far as is shown,
unless the inadequate price mentioned
III the deed from Kailaa should have
put him on his inquiry. There is
nothing in the record to oppose this
theory but 5. NJ. Kaaukai's allegation
in the answer, that when the plaintiff
applied to him to have the land re-
turned to him, he Uniformed plain
tiff that the land had been sold to
Mana for $3.50, and that 500 had been
paid and that $50 was still due and
that he then held the deeds of the
land for the balance which would
be consistent with the theory that the
deed was delivered to Mana, and
thereafter was deposited by him with
5. NJ. Kaaukai as security for the ball
ance of the price of the land.
Even if it is true, as it may be, that
the deed was not delivered by S. NJ.
Kaaukai to Mana at first, but was
held back until the balance was paid,
it was finally delivered in February,
1886, and recorded; under these cir
cumstances the conclusion of the
Judge at Chambers, that Mana
had been put on his inquiry before
such delivery, is a matter of inference
from what appears to me to be very
meagre data. The following is all
the record has to offer on this point.
Section 18th of the bill: "ThaU
shortly thereafter your orator went to
said defendant, Mana, and rendered
him the said $4,000, but said Mana
refused to receive said money or to
return said first mentioned deed to
your orator, or to reconvey the said
M tp 4
of Mana's answer: ait is true that
the plaintiff did come to this defend
ant, as is stated in the 18th section of
the bill, but that he did not offer this
defendant $4,000 as stated in said 18th
section, but he said he had heard from
;. NJ. Kaaukai, one of the defendants,
that the land had been sold to this
and so he had come to pay
this defendant 500 for said land"
There is certainly nothing here to
have awakened suspicion in Mana's
mind that there was anything wrong
in the transaction between Kailaa and
5. NJ. kaaukai or to put him on his
inquiry.
Nor does it seem to me that the In
adequate price of $1,000 named in the
deed from Kailaa, necessarily put
Mana on his inquiry. A price named
in a deed is only prjmn fdcie evidence
of the real consideration. Moreover
Mana in his answer, denies all knoWl-
edge Of the private arrangements be-
tween Kailaa and S. NJ. Kaaukai,
such as would put him on his guard
in the matter, or inform him that a
mortgage was intended by the deed
from Kailaa.
The price of the land as conveyed
to Mana is better Indication of its
real value than the allegation of the
bill of complaint and considerably re-
duces the disproportion of the prices
named in the two deeds.
1t may be that there was evidence
that would make Mana liable in the
matter, but the record, as it stands,
does not implicate him, to my mind,
but leaves him in a position of an in
nOcent third party who is entitled to.