The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-04-27

OPINION oF THE COURT 81 JUDD. -.
This Is su sppesl from decree Of
distribution OF the Circuit Court
First Circuit IL Probate. whereby
the estste Of one d. Ehu who died
interstate wss swarded 10 Hes and
Lsepss. snd the appellants Male,
IazZie kesks. hshsleblns snd hslO
were excluded from participation IN
the estate.
The fscts necessary TO the proper
understanding Of this case are IS
follows:
The estste wss originally owned
by one Luks- She married one Eou,
the deceisnt. snd hsi son by him
Iuks died lesvIng her husband Ehu
and her infsnt son By the statute
OF descent the son inherited the land.
The son died IN infancy snd by stat
ute Fhu inherited the property.
Then Ehu died intestste. lesvlng
Res and Lsepss d. his full sisters
bv their common parents heswe (kl
spd Lsepss l twl-snd alsO the
children Of hssikspu. half brother.
whose parents were Lsepss wi spd
MsksisonsODs. S former husband OF
Isepss l. The children snd heirs
OF hssikspu are the appellants
shove named
The question Is whether the
children Of hssikspu. the hslf broth
CT OF Ebu, inherit e9uslly with his
full sisters
The statute Of descent contains
the provisions. Sec. 1+54 Civ Code,
thst THE kindred Of the half blood
shsll inherit equally with those Of
the whole blood in the same degree;
provided. however, that where the
inheritance csme to the intestste by
descent. devise OF gift. Of some Of
his ancestors. sl those who are not
Of the blood OF such ancestor, shall
be excluded from such Inheritance.
In the present csse the estste came
TO the decedent intes sste Ehu, from
his infant son The son Is therefore
the ancestor" Of his father Il Is
well settled by repested decisions
thst in statutes OF descent the word
ancestor does not have It's popular
nesring IS the one from whom an
other descends. but the one from
whom an eStste i Immediately in
hsritei. Prickett ' Parker. 3 Ohio.
395. Brewster '. Benedict, Il Ohio.
3S5
Graenlee '. Davis. 10 Ind %.
> Wssbburn Resi- Prop PIP. IL
and as ed Of 1922 Counsel for
Contestant urges that II Is absurd 10
csll s son the ancestor Of his
father. but the Circuit Judge rightly
held thst according TO the meaning
of our statute he must be 50 cousid.
cred. We, IS above indicated, s1s-
tsin this view
TIE ststute allows the kindred Of
the half blood 70 inherit equally with
those Of the whole blood IN the same
degree. the exception being ths;
those who are not Of the blood Of the
ancestor from whom the estate came
to the decedent are excluded The
parties in this case are the sppelless
the full sisters OF the deoedent Ehu
and the appellants. who are the
children Of Ehu's half brother.
TIE son Of Emu being the ancestor
from whom the estate came 10 hin
TO exclude the appellants they mus
Be not of the blood F" Of the son Of
Eau. They are Of his blood. fol
their father kssikspu bsd the blood
Of Emu. they tSo having the same
mother. sDd. consequently. hsaikspU
wss of the blood Of Ehu's son
Kssikspu being II the same degree
with E1u's full sisters (the sppellassl
his Ckssiksp1'sl children take then
fathers share by right Of represer-
tstion-
The statute does lot ssy thst &c
Inherit re person must Be Of the
sf1l blood OF the ancestor. The
word - full : not in this part Of the
statute sc2 this meaning would be
Inconsistent with the first part Of the
stsrute which allows the half blood
to inherit equally with the full
blood There i sb1udsnt suthOrit!
for this position Wsshburn IN his
work On Resi- Property. 2 Wash
p. o. 49, ssys that when refer.
enee Is made II the language Of {
statute regulating descent 70 such Is
srs of the blood = Of the person
from whom the estate came father
Is sceo1uted TO Be Of the hood OF bis
daughter Citing Cole '. Bailey, :
Curtis Cir CT 2 So This case 80
held on the authority of Gardner '.
Collins. 2 Peters 5S-ST This case
(decioei BY the Supreme Court OF
the {. s in 1922 holds in the Opin-
ion delivered by Mr. Justice Story on
s statute Of descent identical
With ours that - the phrase of the