The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-11-18

in the
submitted to the jury.
OPINION OF THE COURT JUDD
Action brought the last August of the Circuit
Court First Circuit under the TO Provide for the Quiet
ing of Titles, Estates and Interests in Real Property being
Chap 10 of the Laws of 1890.
Section provides faction may be brought in the Su
preme Court any of the Circuit Courts by person.
against another person who claims adversely the plaintiff
property for the purpose determn
ing such adverse claim"
"Any person may be made defendant in such action
who has claims interest the property adverse to the
plaintiff who necessary party complete determine
ton settlement of the question involved"
eff the time of the of such action
the property in question is in the possession of tenant the
landlord may be joined party defendant"
Sec f. 81" in such action the defendant dscams IN his
swe any interest or estate in the property Judgment
be taken against him without the plaintiff shall
recover costs"
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs Kahoiwai Laelae
Malaea and her husband Kekpi entitled in fee simple
lands described annexed schedule and to the
immediate and possession of the and that Limaeu
W. r. Castle trustee Ia Kiu (w) and All Foo defendants
claim said property adversely and parties to the
complete determination and settlement of the question involved
herein And plaintiffs pray that the defendants be
moned appear and and be required to
adverse claims that they have the said property
any part thereof and that the title said property may be
quoted and plaintiffs ownership in fee simple of the may
be confirmed.
The defendants inerposed demurrer
and the trial before who rendered verdict
for plaintiffs and awarded mae defendant onehalf of the
property Kaua oya Patent 2446 and of the property
Kaa, Waikiki containing y subject to lease to All
Foo and La Ku onehaf of the property described in Land
Commission Award 30 F. L.
The upon exceptions first the overriding
of the demurrer The demurrer submitted that he Court has
Jurisdiction of the subject of the action the of action
if any, being cognzable only in court of equity
"That the complaint does facts sufficient cons
tute of action that plaintiffs do not aege that they
are the owners of the land in question: pos
session thereof that said land the possession of tenant
Chat the complaint is ambiguous and uncertain"
We the first ground of demurrer follows: Although
equity has cognzance of suits to quiet title in lands with
and complete powers the legislature has fit
confer upon certain law this special right of action The
of remedy equity does affect the right of the
plaintiffs choose and the statutory remedy We not
consider the effectiveness of the statutory remedy whether
other form of action would be better suited to this
provided plaintiffs here have substantially followed the
&c. also, the second ground of demurrer that the
plant does not state that plaintiffs of the land
&C., that the does limit this remedy
persons possession. 1t altogether silent upon this matter
and presumably the action be brought by pos
session out of possession Whether the latter pos
session be obtained except by writ ejemen
is not before us for consideration
The complaint follows the statute "ambguous
uncertain" sf
The ground of exception for
st because the plaintiffs evidence dcoses the existence of
other parties Anakaa and Naiapo, presumably having
interests the property according their established relation
ships and they made defendants The Court held that
they necessary parties The properly
fused The statute does require that all parties who have
claim the land be made parties The plaintiff
by the proceed against person who claims ad
vee and whose claim he desires to have determined Persons
who titles the land being parties
bound by this adjudication. This sufficient
this exception The statute Sec y who
sary parties complete determination and settlement of the
question involved mag be made parties but the plaintiffs
remedy, whatever its value may be- mpered by their
absence
The defendant excerpts charge
the interest of W. r. Castle who holds certain
mortgage upon the property submit the the jury
be passed upon and that passed upon by them
But the bill of exceptions shows that admitted
trial that the mortgage in question valid lien portion
of the property in question and that Mr. Castles rights
and be considered of the This
being the Court could not did submit this
the jury No other portions of the charge specifically
excepted to-
The exceptions overruled.
4 q M RobertsOn forD plaintiffs