The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-05-06
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian
Islands, April Term, 1890,
in BaneO.
BEFORE JUDD, CT, M'cULLY AND BIcK-
ERToN, ]. j., DOLE, j., ABSENT.

meteS ana DOunQS, QeScrlDlnS one
side of the lot as bounded by 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 b. or CO. IL
Guiding the lane, to the grantee of
G. G. closed up the lane in 1888.
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
@. to reopen the lane, affirmed.
OPINION OF THE COURT, PER JUDD, c. j..
This case comes to us by defend
ants appeal from the Commissioners
of private ways, ETC., for the district
of Honolulu.
1t seems that on 9th August, 1869,
one Keawekalohe, who owned piece
of land at Kakaako, Honolulu, (des-
eribed in Land Commission Award
No. 1850, 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 to
Kailua or Wright. His conveyance
carried the fee in the lane to Trask.
In 1888, James Wright conveyed the
lot he had bought of Keawekolohe to
defendant, Trask, and his wife. The
lane continued open and in use by
all these parties until 1888 when it
was closed by defendant by his
building cottage upon it.
The Commissioners of private
ways were applied to to order de-
PENDANT to reopen the lane and after
hearing the evidence they ordered
the lane opened by defendant.
BY THE COURT.
The Commissioners were right.
The general doctrine is that "a
grantor of land describing the same
by boundary on street or way. if
he be the owner of such adjacent
land, is estopped from setting up
any claim, or doing any acts incon-
sistent with the grantees use of the
street or way; and such estoppel
would also apply to his heirs, or those
claiming under him. Howe VS..
Alger, 4 Allen 211.
This doctrine is not extended to a
grantOf merely intending by the de-
scription to fix the boundaries, he not
having any interest in the soil of the
street. Id.
We have no hesitation in adopting
this doctrine.
In Pennsylvania it is held that
when grantor sold and conveyed
lots bounding them on an alley he
not only conveyed the use of the
alley as appurtenant to the lots
bounded thereon, but thereby dedi
Gated it to public use. Transue vs..
Sell, los Pa. 500.
Chief Justice Cooley in Smith vs..
Lock, Is, Mich. SO, says: ''The pur-
chase of the lot described as bounded
on street, estops the grantor from
shutting it up so as to prevent his
grantee making use of it for his own
accommodation in the enjoyment of
his purchase. 1t is matter of pri-
yate right, and in no way depends