The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-11-17
SEPTEMBER Term, 1896.
&c. MACFARLANE u. w. F. ALLEN.
EXCEPTIONS FROM CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT.
SUBMITTED October 2, 1896 DECIDED NOVEMBER a. 1896.
JUMP CD. FREAR AND WHrINe j.


JuDp. CD, FRnAR AND Wmrrse, j
paroI gift followed by te years adverse possession
was aware that the land upon which she made the i'm
obligation silence.
OPINION OF THE COURT, BY JUDD, CT
these cases are actions of eecment and were heard
together in the Circuit Court Of the First Circuit jury being
waived In the first the against the Trustees of the
of the late Mrs Berne P Bishop the plaintiff the
lessee of the estate of the late Queen Emma sought
possession of strip of land the side of the stream
called APuakehau on the nak side of the Waikiki road in
the district of Honolulu This piece of land is within the boun-
diaries of the Iii "Kauaokau originally
the property of the late King LunaIo and which he left by
bed Of the stream rnaiai Of the lie to the sea Tb dfJ
claim this land by virtue of parole giftof LUalO then
prince, King Kamehameha V. the being
Kamapuupaas land where the king living which
adjacent and the with reference the
of naos said land of Kaluaokau liable to be flooded
by frehets from the river The king, who had ku!eana
wall to protect KamapPaas premises and IunaiIo being
asked permission the strip of land the king. This
Cn864 thereabouts and the king wall filed in
behind it and continued in possession of until his DEATH and
Kamapuupaa and her have continued in possession
FIT until The possession found the
been adverse, notorious exclusive and continuous. The
that the statute of limitations of real actions had
run in favor of defendants gave Judgment
We do feel authorized disturb this Judgment which may
be called verdict the as jury of the facts
There evidence sufficient sustain it The evidence viii
bear the construction apparently put it by the
parole gift and evocabe after twenty years adverse
d occupation. -r.sI - zrrr 4
We override exceptions in this case. - = -
r0 I'm the second case MacfoyIane Atn the claimed
by plaintiff piece originally of the stream
within the boundaries of the said Iii OF Kauaokau The
land has been possession of defendant his
title for twenty years, but the larger part of made
dry land by Mrs B. p Bishop by filing in bed of
in front of land owned by her. The defendant
the land upon the doctrine of equitable estoppe The trial
found, recing the of eoppe Das
established by this Kela PahuiIna, 527,
that the facts did sustain the plea especially
was lacking engeien of of knowledge the part
Mrs Bishop that the land which she filled in and improved
not hers The court found fact that she knew the land
was Queen Enma's and we find evidence to sustain this
~ The defendants counsel urged that esoppe may
favor of the defendant who has acted with knowledge
that the title to the land was IN the plaintiff and that there
eoPpe because Mrs Bishop, though knowing the land
Twas Queen Emmas improved relying the original
promise OF Lunahlo to hamehaneha Chat he might have it in
order to build retaining wall the sea and Queen Emma,
The facts do not sustain this view .ry ...Fz - -.
The filling in of the land by Mrs Bishop up line pro
ecng almost right angles with the wall does
an extension OF the protecting wall (ee map or necessary to
the Protection Of anapuupaas land The protecting wall
land by hamehameha IN his life time for which the gift of the
land incident to made The work the witnesses say
completed by Kanehameha but Finished by Mrs
Bishop" but is clear wall
R9eft ma Land and IAN 3 Ell eana was
land and nearly to its end.
No act representation conduct of Queen Emma is shown
which would estop her. Her silence
sno apparent upon her part speak, any specific
occasion to speak, and proof that Queen Emma knew that
not have so acted if the truth told her
s5Ef.I JNhsoJokpsoa, 50 N Y. 80. = ss.z. Is EEf.E
There evidence that Mrs Bishop knew of the parole gift
of Lunao and if so, she could not have relied upon
ing the improvements Where person takes possession of
land of another knowing the title trespasser and
if he proceed improve the land though the seeing
nothing specific opportunity occurring when he should
speak,, is esopped from thereafter land
See f. "A. NGhdOIeJHG ct al. T. KdGahH ct a., 10 Haw.
all the find, including those cited by
defendants where possession of land the improve
nents made upon it and esoppe found, the
party acting and seeking the estoppeI ignorant
the title he was not his own
he relied representation of the
which it incumbent upon him disavow which it
be