The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-05-26
OPINION or THE COURT,
BY JUDD, c. J.

This is an action Of debt to recover
rent on a written lease for a term.
Several natives living in WaiaIua
Oahu, claiming to own various separate
parcels OF land joined in making a lease
Of the same to a number of Chinese.
The rent was to be at a certain sum
per acre of land to be cultivated and
used as a rice plantation. Among the
lessons was one KaaiuIaula, claiming
some nine acres of the land described
in Royal Patent No. 333. The lease is
dated July z, 1890, and is for the term
Of twenty years KaaiuIaula, shortly
before his death in 1894, made a con-
veyance of this land to the plaintiffs
The Chinese tenants paid rent to Kaaiu-
laula, and after his conveyance con-
tinued TO pay some to POlOaiea, one of
the plaintiffs. The suit is to recover
rent TO date of the action. 1t was claim
ed by the defendants, and evidence was
introduced tending to prove the same,
that on receiving notice from persons
claiming TO be the owners that defend
ants lessor, KaaiulauIa, had no title to
the land, upon examination they were
satisfied that the claim was true and
offered the possession of the land to
Kaaiulaula's grantees plaintiffs), and
sOnable time took a lease from Hattie
KekinO, Makala (wl and her husband,
PuOu, who claim to be the real owners,
and offered to prove the heirship from
Manana, the original patentee, as fol-
lows: That Manana devised the land by
will, dated in 1855, to Kehaahiwa, his
wife; Kaanaana, the brother of Keka-
ahiwa, inherited it from her, and the
land passed by inheritance to Kama
ana's daughter, Makala and his grand |
daughter, Hattie Kekino The defend |
ants also offered to prove that Kaaiu- !
laula was tenant at will, living on the |
land under Kaanaana, and offered GER
tain probate records to prove that Ka-
aiulaula had admitted this title to Ka-
anaana, having given evidence to this
effect in proceedings in probate in the
matter of the estate of Kekaahiwa in |
1867.
The trial Court held that the evidence
of the defendants did not prove a legal
surrender, and that the defendants as
Iessees of the plaintiffs were estopped
10 deny their title, and refused to ad-
nit the evidence offered as to the title
The Bill OF Exceptions disputes the cor
Tectness of these rulings. The position
of defendants is this: If they can show
that KaaiulauIa and his grantees are
estopped to deny the title of the real
owner, the heirs of Kaanaana plain
tiffs being tenants at will and not hav-
ing asserted title in themselves. this
now enuTes to the benefit of
under their lease from the
true owners; also they do not seek to
deny the plaintiffs title, but to show
an affirmative title in themselves, from
which any title the plaintiffs had was
derived; also they claim that the title
that Kaaiulaula had, as a tenant at
will was terminated by the lease of the
true owners to defendants. The inter
esting question as to whether this evil
Ience was properly excluded is raised
or the first time in our courts.
1t is a general and we'll settled rule
If law that tenant cannot dispute his {
title. Disputing the land
ord's title means the setting up of an
Incompatible and paramount title to
lefeat it. But there are exceptions to Y
his rule, and cases arise where the 4
ule would seem to apply on first sight,
)ut which have circumstances which
efeat its operation. Taylor, L. e. T., {
Zee. 708. In Mays V. Dwight, 80 Pa. ST., Y
81, it was held that where fraud or de- =
option is practiced by the landlord in
inducing the tenant to accept the lease,
r where the lease was made in ignor- q
nee of material fact, the tenant is L
OF estOpped. +
In People V. Hewlett, 76 n. Y, STA,
tenant successfully plead that his
ease was made to cover usury. "a ten I
Mt is not estopped to set up that his
indlord's title is legally extinguished
r terminated so that it no longer eX-
'ts-" Ryder V. Marshall, sc Me-, 40
Lamson V. Clarkson, 113 Mass. 34S, ,
) authority that a tenant is not estop- :
ed to show that his landlords title /
as only an estate for the life of an 4
Their, which expired during the term,
nd thereby to justify his not paying
ent to the landlord subsequently &C u
'ued. -
Hillbourn V. Fogg ct al. 80 Mass. IL. -
to similar effect. 1t is there held
lat a tenant is not estopped to deny ID
lat since his own entry into possess l.
on his lessons title has expired. either =
: its own limitation, by the act of the =
Ssor or by eviction by title paramount "
Id that when the estoppeI is set ND
2 one claiming as assignee of the les -,
r, the tenant may show that such as =;
ngnment was Intellectual to pass the u
ssor's title. In this case Mrs. Hillbourn y
cupied her room as a tenant at will Oj
Mrs. McGrath. McGrath made a
'itten lease of the room to Fogg, who Of
PEELED Mrs. HillbOurn from the room.
1T Mrs. McGrath did not own the es- y
-e and was herself a tenant at will of Il
e owner, and the court. per Gray, j.. SIT
Id that she (Mrs. McGrath) could not
Ike valid alienation which would
re FOgg better title than she had oe
given to Mrs. HiIlbourn. &c
s. HillbOurn was held not estonned in!