The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1896-10-02
OPINION OF THE COURT. BY FREAR, ],

This action Of ejecnent possession certain
land covered by Land Commission Award 1922 the north
eaSery side Of Hotel Street. Honolulu the plaintiff claiming
title thereto by purchase
Pleas and Implications Of considerable length filed set
ting forth the deeds and the records Of the former proceedings
referred but for the purposes this decision they may be
briefly stated in substance follows:
Pleas That the plaintiff claims solely under certain
deeds from persons whose only claim of title by descent
from Charles hanana, deceased, ntesae and that
tain proceedings probate after notice. by publication and
hearing the property remaining in the possession of the admin
OF the OF said kanaina adjudged be dis
rbued certain other persons the heirs of said Kanana.
, That IN certain partition proceedings after notice, by publ
cation and hearing the land in question by order OF
sold auction and such sale purchased by and conveyed
TO the defendant all OF which known the the
plaintiffs gantor }. That the deeds the plaintiff made
when his ganto were out Of possession and the defendant in
possession. holding adversely them with their knowledge.
Repeatons, That the decree OF distribution void
for jurisdiction OF the the parties because
In Of the published notices the date OF hearing
forth September % 1882 the appointed and actual day
OF hearing being September 10 1882 that the decree
valid, YET the plaintiffs rator related the said
hanalna the degree that claimed by the distributes
and thar therefore the plaintiff entitled least share
Of the and that the proceedings for distribution
the time thereof unknown the plaintiffs grantorS That
the plaintiffs rantors parties the partition pro-
eeeing and that the the time thereof unknown
them. That the adverse possession Of the defendant
unknown the plaintiffs the dates OF their
veyances.
The here the reserved question Of the suceney
Of the pleas and the demurrer
The estate to portion Of which the plaintiff claims title
this that Charles kauaina father King
o was supposed have been settled after much litigation
during the wears 1S77lSS1 And in view OF the of
that litigation the length Of that has elapsed and
the Of property the title which may be affected by
this decision. well the Importance Of the legal questions
involved and the disputed effect certain former decisions of
this Court closely related questions may be justified in
stating the for conclusions length The
pleas all Of which opinion insufficient viii be
sdered IN their order.
In considering the peahat former adjudication Of
the question Of heirshp certain probate proceedngwe
shall that the notice by publication in those proceedings
defective be assalabe collatera this case
The ground Of decision that the question heirsp
fact adjudeated those proceedings the plaintiffs
rantor with reference the real Those proceed
n the petition Of the administrator Of the Of Charles
Kanaina deceased examination and allowance ac-
for distribution Of the personal property "a Of
money remaining in his hands and for his discharge. They
concerned the real Of the decedent and the
plaintiffs gantor parties thereto and as be
assumed this Of the case) without knowledge
thereof.
The question now raised Is whether finding (o hehip)
IN the Of proceeding for drbution) in respect
Of subject certain personal eate conclusive another
proceeding ectment respect Of different subject certain
real estate who though having constructive notice
did appear the first proceeding If the plaintiffs grantor
bound by the finding made IN the first proceeding, he also
Is bound for he Is IN privity with them
The general rule Is that Judgment void entitled
be heard who had notice actual constructive: but if
there notice then the subject Of the proceeding the
judgment every other proceeding conclusive only upon
every point that gad in the first proceeding but upon
every point that might have been gate; but different
subject the judgment Is conclusive only upon points actually
contested and adudca in the proceeding Consequently
If entitled be heard appears but puts only Of his
defens and remains silent Others he subsequent
proceeding upon the subject bound all his defenes
bur IN subsequent proceeding upon different subject he Is
bound only such defens made and adudcaed IN
the first proceeding and he makes default altogether he
subsequent proceeding upon the subject bound all
hs deeuses, but subsequent proceeding upon different
subject he bound any defense In the present
that the plaintiffs granto received constructive
notice Of the proceedings for distribution but they did
appear take any part the litigation and therefore, al
though bound BY the decree the subject Of those proceed
ngshe personal property all points that might