The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-09-30

the dssessor
OPINION COURT, FREAR J.
action of eectment to recover possession of certain
land covered by Land Commission the north
eastery side of Hotel Street. Honolulu plaintiff claiming
title thereto by purchase.
Pleas and repcation of considerable length
ting forth the deeds and the records of the proceedings
referred but for the purposes of this decision they may
briefly stated in substance follows
Pleas l. That the plaintiff claims solely certain
deeds from persons whose only claim of title by
from Charles Kanana, deceased ntestate and that
tam proceedings IN probate after notice. by pubLcahOn and
hearing the property remaining in the possession of the admin
traor of the estate of said Kanaina aduged be dis
rbuted persons Kanana
g. That in certain partition proceedings publ
cation hearing the land in question by order of
sold auction sale purchased v and convened
to the defendant all of which
plaintiffs gantors g. That the deeds the plaintiff
when his ganto were out of possession and the defendant in
possession holding adversely them with their knowledge.
Replcation l. That the decree of distribution void
for of jurisdiction of the the parties because
of the published notices the date of hearing
set forth September 25 1892 the appointed and actual day
of hearing being September that the
valid yet the plaintiffs granto related the said
Kanaina in the degree that claimed by the distributes
and that therefore the plaintiff entitled least share
of the and that the proceedings for distribution
the time thereon unknown to the plaintiffs grantor z That
the plaintiffs grantors parties the partition pro
ceedng and that the the time thereof unknown
them That the adverse possession the defendant
unknown the plaintiffs the dates of their
veyances.
To these repicatons there was a general demurrer.
The here the question of the sucency
of the pleas and the demurrer
The portion of which the plaintiff claims title
this action that of Charles Kanaina father of King Luna
lilo, supposed have been settled after much litigation
during the years 187718S1. And in view of the of
that litigation, the length of time that has elapsed and
the amount of property the title to which be affected by
this decision, well the Importance of the legal questions
involved and the disputed decisions of
this Court closely related questions be justified ia
stating the for conclusions length The
pleas, all of which in opinion insufficient will be
sidered in their order.
In considering the first peatha of former adjudication of
the question of heisp in certain probate proceedngwe
shall that the notice by publication in those proceedings
defective be assalabe colatealy in this
ground of decision that the question of hershp
not in adjudcated proceedings plaintiffs
grantors Those proceed
petition the administrator the of Charles
Kanana deceased for examination and allowance of his ac
counts for distribution of the personal property Ga of
money! remaining in his hands, and for his discharge They in
concerned the real of the decedent and the
plaintiffs grantor parties thereto and be
assumed this of the case) without knowledge
thereof
The question now raised whether finding (of hershp)
in the of proceeding for distrbuton in respect
subject Certain personal esta conclusive in another
proceeding (ejecmen respect of different subject Certain
who though having constructive notice,
did not appear proceeding If the plaintiffs grantcrs
by the finding made in the first proceeding he also
is bound, for he is in privity with them.
The general Judgment is void entitled
be heard who had notice. actual constructive but
there then the subject of the proceeding the
Judgment every other proceeding conclusive only upon
every point that gated in the first proceeding but
that might have been tigaed but different
the Judgment points actually
contested and adudcaed in the first proceeding Consequent,
entitled be heard appears but puts only of his
defenes and remains silent others, he in subsequent
proceeding the subject bound all his defenses,
but in subsequent proceeding upon different subject be
only such deenses made and adiudcated
the proceeding; and he makes default altogether he is
subsequent proceeding upon the subject bound ali
his defenses, but in subsequent proceeding upon different
subject he Is bound any defense In the present
that the plaintiffs gantors received
the proceedings for distribution but they did
appear take any part in the litigation and therefore, al
though bound by the decree the subject of those proceed
nee personal propertyupon all points that might