The Hawaiian gazette., 1896-10-02

the other states in which the question has arisen the judicial
decisions the way Among the generally
terred to and which referred by defendants counsel in
tins case as holding such conveyances void by the common law
are those OF Massachusetts, and New York But in the former
the appears have held not so much by the
common law OF England by the law of Massachusetts,
which included the law of England at the time of the
Pretended Title Act Somes {. Skinner. Pick %;
Bri'tg Z Waiting Pick. S4s Barry Z. Adams, ) Allen
+9+, And in New York find the decisions based upon
local statute passed. the said early day of
Difference for English legislation This statute was after
wards for the part abogad And the said that in
tins country and especially this the whole law of
maintenance except far it is embodied in
has been repeatedly regarded by the inappcabe
the present condition of society and substantially obsolete and
that in England the law of maintenance has fallen in
a measure into desuetude" Sedqcck Stanton, Il n. Y.
2S9 Maine another state in which the old rule deemed
law but only the said because recognized BY
the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, before the separation of
this State from that Commonwealth The old law how
altered by statute and in reply the argument of
for construction of the the court after showing
the nappica6y of the old law the present of social
equality freedom of trade and fair administration of Justice
said that would thwar the purposes of benecent lega
ton by substituting therefor doctrines which had their origin
in sembarbarou age and which have long fallen into
dlsrepute with the occasion which elected Them Horey
Hobon 81 Me- g. Some Courts it true, adhere the old
rule distinctly the ground that the law
OF England Flte Doe, Bf. 1915 Martin Clark, r.
l. $780, GrUber Baker 20 New. 49, But the weight of
authority be the effect that this the
common law 1t Is obsolete such and has
the present time apart from Schomp Scheck 40
\. j. l. 1875; HdthersOn Fitch, - Cal Sc; Batnck
Franklin, IS Tex 1885, Wright Meek CIR Qa) 472: Hall
1Shbg Oh 90; BrOloH Bqne u Or 260; Richardson
RortdRd 40 Conn. 565 Roberts Cooper 90 How c. 81
467 Crane L. Reeder u Mich %: Hddduck Wilmarth
n. H. ISL.
We further of the opinion that the doctrine conended
tor II common law within the exception of the statute a
otherwise fixed by Hawaiian judicial precedent established
by Hawaiian national usage See DanfOrth Streete %
Vt 1876 The principal grounds upon which the rule said
TO rest are champery necessity for livery of en and naen-
ability OF chose in action Champery criminal
oense here by the law early English
utes The rule not adapted to the conditions of equality,
freedom OF trade and fair administration Justice that have
long prevailed here The such was not in force
here until January 1898 Livery of seisin has never been
required here hdpdukeG laurence, Haw. GA; Rose
Smith, Haw 377; Kedmdlu Luhdu, Haw. 1874 The
ground OF nongnabtv of chose action as a support to
this rule disposed of in Estate of Kealahou Haw
Conveances by deee have frequently been the basis of
litigation here without their validity being questioned See
for instances, 4yleH Keamedmdhi Haw 800: Kela D.
PQhHimd, Haw. 525; Rose Smith, Ib. 377: 4chi D.
hdCd Ib 29S In the in which alone so far az
know the validity of such conveyances has been questioned
the conveaces have been sustained although in one of the
hdpduked laurence Haw GA no reasons are given
and in the other Estate of hediaOnu Haw g. the
reasoning bears only upon the question of nonasgnabty of
chose IN action. See also Harque u Paris, 10 Haw-
are therefore of the opinion that the demurrer and pleas
insufficient and the remanded to the Circuit Court
OF the First Circuit for such further proceedings as NAV be
proper.
Kinney oe BGlou and W. r. Castle for plaintiff
4 s HdrtreH and ThmSon Stanley for defendant