The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-02-15
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, c.


separate suit.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, CD.
As appears from the bill the origi-
nal owners of the land In question
situate at Honuaino, North Kona,
Hawaii, were Ann Cavansgh and
Thos. Z. Cavansgh, who on the I'D
November, 1884, executed lease OF
the same to John Costa, for term of
ten years from the 25th October, 1884.
The lease contained a covenant to re-
new the same upon the request of
the lessee or his assigns on or before
the termination of the term in and
by said lease limited. On the 9th
May, 1894, John Costa sold and as
signed all his right and interest in
the lease to the plaintiff, V. Ohera.
Meanwhile the Cavsnaghs had sold
the land in question to the defendant,
Alderman.
On the I'd July, 1894, and often
thereafter, Alderman was requested
on behalf of plaintiff to execute re-
newal of the lease, which was refused
by defendant who denied plaintiffs
right to such renewal. On the 18th
August, 1894, the defendant forcibly
dispossessed the plaintiff from the
premises and has since excluded him
therefrom. The plaintiff prays that
the defendant be decreed to execute
a renewal of said lease to plaintiff
for ten years from the time of the
expiration of the lease; that he be re-
instated In the possession of the
premises and that damages be award
ed him for his wrongful expulsion
from the premises and for further
relief.
The defendant claims as ground
for demurrer that Equity has no
jurisdiction. We answer that Equity
has Jurisdiction to enforce specific
performance of a covenant for re-
newal of lease, for in such case the
damages for withholding such re-
newal cannot be accurately deter
mined.
The bill is not demurrable for non
joinder of Costs,-the original lessee,
plaintiffs assignor. He had no re-
naming interest in the lease as
shown In the bill. A complete decree
can be made upon this bill between |
the parties.
Willard v. Taylor, s Wall. 557.
Gibbs v. Blackwell, 81 Ill. 19I.
Allen v. Woodruff, 96 Ill. IL.
The bill is claimed to be demurra-
bic because it is brought premature
~, before the lease expired and it is
urged that non constat that the lessor
would not have executed the renewal
before the term expired. The ques-
ton then is at what time could the
covenant made by the lessor must be
construed more strongly against him
self as its maker, and we are of
opinion that the clause in the lease
gives the option to demand the re-
newal at any time before the exPira-
ton Of the term. The bill alleges
requests for renewal from
the 9th May to the 18th August-and
at that date the plaintiff was forci-
bly, elected from the premises.
Certainly after this action of the
lessor, the justification for which
does not appear, the lessee was not
bound to make a new demand.
In cases where the covenant is to
renew the lease at its expiration, it
mas been held that the lessee Is not
pound to wait until the actual term
lnatlon of the lease before he makes
ms election to have the lease renew
ed.
Tracy v. Albany Exchange Co., z
n. Y. 472.
Darling Y. Hoban, SO Mich. 500.
oodd Taylor Landlord & Tenant, sec.
~ As to the point made in argument
mat the relief prayed for is demurra-
9le,-that the plaintiff may have
G;smages for the forcible disposses-
su oS rom the premises. We do not
donnr snas 1t was made a ground Of
Is that the covenant to renew be
spselncally enforced. This is a
qua :. ground for equitable relief
wh;oh 'ne Oil sets up another claim
s %n,S6 upon tP its face contains no
Beach M tns oil is not multifarious.
" HooerP Eq. practice, sec. 125