The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-05-06

BEFORE JUDD, G. j., MCULLY AND BICK-
ERToN. J. J., DOLE, j., ABSENT.
J. KAMAI VS.. A. q. TRAsK.
A. conveyed land to B. in 1869 by
metes and bounds, describing one
side of the lot as bounded by q mar.
row lane. The same day A. con
veyed by metes and bounds to G.
another lot on the other side of the
lane, describing it as bounded by
the lane. A. still owned land in the
rear and had access to the street
through this lane. In 1877. A. sold
the remainder of his land (what had
not been conveyed to Il. or CO. IL
Guiding the lane, to the grantee of
G. G. closed up the lane in 1883.
Held, that the grant of the lot by
A. to B. describing it as bounded by
the lane, A. owning the lane, estop-
ped A. and his grantees from deny
ing the existence of the lane.
The award of the Commission Of
private ways ordering the defendant
G. to reopen the lane, affirmed.
OPINION OF THE COURT, PER JUDD, G. j..
This case comes to us by defend
ants appeal from the Commissioners
of private ways, etc., for the district
of Honolulu.
It seems that on 9th August, 1859,
one Keawekalohe, who owned q piece
of land at Kakaako, Honolulu, (des-
cribed in Land Commission Award
No. 3455), sold portion of it to one
Kailua and on the same day sold
another portion Of it to one James
Wright. A lane was left between
these two lots and each lot was de-
scribed In the deeds of conveyance
as bounded by this lane. Keaweka-
lobe still owned the rear portion OF
the land, from which the lots sold to
Kailua and Trask were taken, and
had access to the street through the
lane.
The plaintiff, j. Kamai, is the
owner, by title not disputed, of the
lot conveyed to Kailua. In 1877
Keawekolohe sold to defendant
Trask, all of his land described in
Land Commission Award No. 3455
which had not been conveyed tc
Kailua or Wright. His conveyance
carried the fee in the lane to Trask
In 1883, James Wright conveyed the
lot he had bought of Keawekolohe te
defendant, Trask, and his wife. The
lane continued open and in use by
all these parties until 1888 when i
was closed by defendant by his
building a cottage upon it.
| NIL ~ VOTE
ways were applied to to order de
PENDANT to reopen the lane and aftel
hearing the evidence they ordered
the lane opened by defendant.
! BY THE COURT.
i The Commissioners were right
The general doctrine is that 81
grantor of land describing the SAM
by boundary on street or way. i
he be the owner of such adjacen
land, is estopped from setting NJ
any claim, or doing any acts incon
sistent with the grantees use OF tn
} street or way; and such estoppe
would also apply to his heirs, or thos
claiming under him." Howe VI
Alger, 4 Allen 211.
This doctrine is not extended to
, grantor merely intending by the dc
: scription to fix the boundaries, he nc
} having any interest in the soil OF tn
, street. Id.
We have no hesitation in adoptin
this doctrine.
a In Pennsylvania it is held ths
? when a grantor sold and conveye
lots bounding them on an alley b
{ not only conveyed the use OF til
: alley as appurtenant to the lo'
4 bounded thereon, but thereby ded
J. Gated it to public use. Transue "
Q Sell, los Pa. 600.
81 Chief Justice Cooley in Smith v
y Lock, Is, Mich. So, says: "The pu'
chase of the lot described as bounde
on street, estops the grantor fro
!. shutting it up so as to prevent b
. grantee making use Of it for his ON
= accommodation in the enjoyment
!, his purchase. It is matter OF p1
:, y vate right, and in no way depen'
g upon the question whether the pu
= lie have acquired q right OF way
! not" See Parker VS.. Smith !
= Mass. 413.