The Hawaiian gazette., 1896-09-25


in cases where exact compensation made relief will
be granted the breach due to gross negligence is
ssent and wilful the part of the lessee. See Garrett
Hacfalane Haw 1876; Pom. Eq Jur, Secs 452454; Tay
Tor, Id. Il Ten, Sec. 1876.
In Haqar a. Buck supra the Court far relieve
against forfeiture incurred for breach of repair
this expressly the ground that the option purchase
definite brought the within the rule applicable
to cases where full compensation be mae for upon the
lessons parting with all his interest in the premises by convey
ance thereof the agreed upon would thought the
Court mmatera him whether the covenants had been
kept not although that have about
far as any in this direction might nevertheless feel obliged
to follow it, dngushabe from the at bar
seems that the present case unlike the Vermont
appears of those which the breach has been
persistent and wfu 1t appears that the lessee might by
able effort have cleared the land within the first eighteen months
and kept it afterwards And although accepted
and may technically constituted waiver of the breach
for the purpose continuing the purchase option well the
lease proper until April 1885, yet the tenant not thereby
led believe the breach acqueced that forfeit
would not be enforced for repeatedly during nearly the whole
period least after the expiration of the first eighteen months
urged clear the land and told that he had lost his
by his failure do and warned that he would lose
his lease he did keep his covenant; but judge from
his testimony well that of j. d. Paris r the prlnc
pal for the defendants he Indifferent to these
and disposed clear the land solely with view to his
convenience regardless of his duty under the covenant
The breach continued the whole perodncudng
months after refused and when there not
technical and until the lapse of considerable time
prior efforts the premises from the lessee for breach
of his covenants did he attempt exercise the option pur
chase The legal right under such circumstances with the
landlord and the desires be relieved from the
quences of his acts appear least that he has
persstenty and wfuy neglected perform his obiga
He who equity do with clean hands
however, argued that the lessons grantee did succeed
to the right POSSESSION for breach of condition
This have been the rule law. Co. Litt
214a But now" says Taylor Id & Ten Sec No. "a
veyance of leased premises without reservation carries with it
all the grantor rights in the lease including the right pos
upon forfeiture for the breach of OF Its conditions
and excerpts only such obligations merely collateral
thereto personal character This change the law
made by in England (32 Hen Will 3D. and in
many of the United States States appears have
been adopted without the aid of statute See Page Ea 81
Me- 319; McGuffe Garter, 40 Mich 497; Mckssick
Pickle 16 Pa St 40 Another branch of the rule at
law prevented reservation of rent from passing to
lessons grantee Co. L 213b This also has been changed by
England and partly by and partly by Judicial
decisions in America Taylor Id & Ten, Sec. 1885, Perrin
Topper 81 Mich. 292; Burden q. Thayer, 3 Metc., 76
The old rule provision of the feudal law and grew of
of society which does in these Islands There
and here the necessity that there in England
the Middle Ages for laws against champery and maintenance
prevent the stirring of for purposes of oppression
any why landlord should convey his without
the aornment of his Freedom rather than
of alienation required under present conditions The
for this rule having ceased the rule itself should also
And there be little doubt that lessons grantees have
hitherto IN these Islands acted accordingly and exercised the
right entry for breach of condition. although do know
of any judicial decision directly upon the subject In Darts
Spencer, Haw PA, the Court suggested but did decide
the question whether did 90 far give the
right OF entry the lessons grantee See Civ Code Sec 939
relating summary proceedings possession. In Gar
rett Nacfdrdne Haw 435, the Court while it did
expressly the question: assumed that the lessons grantee
might the right of entry for held (on demurre that
equity would relieve against the forfeiture There would have
been necessity for holding and the lessee would have had
adequate remedy law if the grantee of the could
have lawfully entered See also Kuamu Iaukea Haw
of the he old law in
question law here because it is otherwise established by
Hawaiian national usage" Laws of 1892, Oh. 81 Sec. s.
appealed from dismissing the bill with
affirmed.
A. G. H. Robertson for plaintiff.
Kinney d Ballou for defendants.