The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-09-23

in cases where compensation be made not
be granted the breach due gross negligence per-
and willfu the part of the lessee See Garrett
HdcfarGRe Haw. 435; Pom Eq Jur., Sees 452454; lay
lor Id. d Ten, Sec. 1876.
In Hagar Buck supra, the relieve
against forfeiture incurred for breach of repair
but this expressly the ground that the option purchase
for definite sum brought the WITHIN the rule applicable
where full compensation be made for upon the
parting all his premises by convey
agreed upon would thought the
Court be immaterial him whether the had been
kept And although that have gone about
far any in this direction might nevertheless feel obliged
follow it. if distingushabe from the at bar.
1t to US that the present case unlike the Vermont case
appears, in which the breach has been
persistent and wu 1t appears that the lessee might by
able effort have cleared the land within the rs eighteen months
and kept clear afterwards And although accepted
technically constituted waiver of the breach
the purpose of continuing the purchase option well the
lease proper until April 1895 yet the thereby
led to believe that the breach acquesced that forfeit
re oud not he enforced m epeaedlv nearly the whole
PERIOD the expiration of the first eighteen months
urged clear the land and told that he had lost his
opon bv his failure to do So and was warned that he would
if he did keep his but Judge from
testimony well that of j. d. Paris, Jr, the prnc
pal witness defendants indifferent these
ings and disposed clear the land solely with view his
convenience regardless of his duty under the covenant
The breach continued the whole periodncudng
refused, and when there
technical waiver; and until the lapse Of considerable time
bringing of the of eectmen nothing of
prior efforts the premises from the lessee for breach
of his covenants attempt option pur
chase The legal right under such circumstances is with the
landlord and the desires be relieved from the
quences his acts appear least that he has
persistenty wfuly neglected perform his obga
tons. He who into equity must do with clean hands
1t is however argued that the lessons did succeed
right and take POSSESSION for breach of condition
This seems been the rule law Co. Lit,
But now says Taylor, Id. q Ten, See 40, "a
veyance of leased premises without reservation, carries with it
all the grantors rights in the lease including the right pos
upon forfeiture for the breach of of its conditions,
excerpts only such obligations merely collateral
thereto personal character This change the law
NV +o4,,to IN Fpo1oC Han and
of the United States but States appears to have
been adopted without the aid of See Page ESt 81
Ne. 319; HcGuffe carter, ID Mich 1917; Mex issic a.
Pickle 16 Pa ST 14O Another branch of the rule at
prevented reservation of from passing
grantee Co. t 213b This also has been changed by
England and partly by statute and partly by Judicial
decisions in America. Taylor Id q Ten, Sec 1885, Perrin
Temper, 81 Mich. 1922 Burden a. Thay@, Metc., rs
The old rule is provision of the euda law and out OF
state of society which in these Islands There
not the necessity that there in England in
the Middle Ages for laws against champerty and maintenance
prevent the stirring up su for purposes of OPPRESSION
any why landlord should convey his estate without
the attornmen of his Freedom rather than
restraint of alienation required under present conditions The
for this rule having ceaed the rule itself should also
cease And there be little doubt that lessons grantees have
hitherto in these Islands accordingly and exercised the
right breach condition. although do not know
any judicial decision directly upon the subject In Darts
Spencer Haw. PA, the Court suggested but did not decide
question whether did far to give the
right of entry to the lessons grantee See ~ Code Sec 97
relating summary proceedings possession In oar
rett Macfaran 435, the Court, while it did not
expressly the question: assumed that the lessons grantee
might exercise the right entry held deurrer that
equity against the forfeiture. There would have
necessity holding and the lessee would have had
adequate remedy if the of the reverson could
not have lawfully entered Kudnu IaUkeo, Haw
612 We of the opinion that the old common law rule IN
question law here, because it Is otherwise established by
Hawaiian national usage" Laws of 1892, CHI 81, Sec D
The appealed from dmng the bill with costs Is
affirmed
f. G. H. Robertson for plaintiff
ID,7Jo r6afan dantS