The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-11-21


the location and
# dsny 81 5f nd n oon GG De s as be that which is described
in another deed duly recorded IF om third person to the grant
scrpton which otherwise be ambiguous or insufficient
OPINION OF THE COURT BY P NEUMANN. ESQ
This is action in eiectment and i before this
cepons Judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of the
First Judicial Circuit in favor of plaintiff Both the plaintiff
and the defendant claim title from and the
namely through w Mikasobe; the defendants Is by
under execution against Mikasobc
dated August and the plaintiffs Is by deed from Mika
sobe himself dated November Is 1897 The proceedings in
the action against Mkasobe, under which the marshaI deed
made, mpeached for eguarity and the only
question be determined is this Does the morsha deed
tain description sufficiently certain show what conveyed
under It. or was that description so vague ana uncertain tna
nothing passed under and that the title still remained in Mka
sobe The description in the deed from Nakapua Mkasobc
IS in the Hawaiian language and we quote the conveying portion
follows
NolaiIa Ike kuai Ike haav Ike hoolo loa alu
w. Mkasobe oleoa kela apana alma cua wailo la
Iaa d KaluaoIohe Waikiki Oahu Il hoike Ia ma ka
palapaa sa helu Kueana IIeu 6GI6 haav ia
ka noa Nuuanu, kou aikana ponoi oWau vale no hon IA
pill koe ola ne
Which being translated reads follows:
Therefore do hereby SELL and convey the said
W. Mikasobe those pieces of land situate in kaa
Kauaolohe Waikiki Oahu, and exhibited by Eoya! Patent No
and Land Commission Award No. G61G awarded in the
ton living
This deed is dated the Sd of October 1882 and
Nkasobe made mortgage Cartwright ostenby for the
same land, which in the mortgage is described as follows
All those parcels of land lying situate and being
Waikiki aforesaid, particularly described Royal
Patent No 2564 Land Commission Award NO. 66l6 IN the
Nuuanu and conveyed said mortgagor by deed of
Nakapuah dated October 1882 recorded in Iibcr So
and PIP, containing of 634-1000 of
In the deed from the marshal the land is described thus:
All that certain piece parcel of land situate laid Ka
oli containing an area of acre. and being the
same premises described in Royal Patent No 256 Iand
Commission No issued Nuranu and that
conveyed TO Nkasoe bv Nakapuah by deed dared October
1892 recorded in the office of the Registrar of Conycynce
in Iber So foos 21122. Subject however mortgage Of
hundred dollars (S6OOoO) made by said Mikaobe y j.
Cartwright, dated October ;, 1882 and recorded
Iiber so, foios 212-213."
Royal Patent No 1854 puports comprise only piece
of land situated Kauaoohc, Waikiki, containing 3710o OF
which awarded under Land Commission Award 66l6
dated March 1855 Nuuanu but another award of the
under and to the awardee made June l. 1882
which allotted Nuuanu l. 3 and T. the last ensmer
ated being the land controversy Both parties this action
agree that the deed from Nakapuah apparently the sole heir
Of Nuuanu) CONVEYS to Mkasobe the title the }71OO
and Apna comprising appears from the mortgage
before mentioned 6341OOO of and it may be noted
here that the land described in the award of 1855 and Apana
1000 of an
Can the subject of conveyance be collected from the whole
description the marsas deed! If the only reference therein
had been the patent number 2564 unquestonaby nothing
would then have been conveyed than the land IN the
described whether the of the land larger smaller
than that stated in the patent but here reference also made to
Land Commission Award 6616, and the deed of Nakaua
Akasobe. These references taken in connection with the
stated of the land demonstrate with accuracy and certainty
what intended be conveyed and in fact conveyed
the description in the deed Insufficient
not the only description upon which grantee needed rely
Royal merely quit claim Of the of the
in lands 1T does neither convey confirm title
B11tls Minister Of Interior, IIaw 7S3 Suppose that the
patent had contained description OF any OF the land allotted
under the Land Commission Awards instead of only portion
the could be erou contended in view of the
subsequent description in the marshas deed that nothing
the grantee by that instrument. Indeed if such failure L
describe all the pieces intended to be conveyed had happened
the could reject that reference entirely and sustain the dec
upon the other data therein given much than if the
patent shows only part OF the land intended be conveyed
In the of Motley T. hUEGiGu Plantation Co., ante
525, this held the principle of Interpretation be that i
there be description of the property clear and definite
sufficient render certain what to be demised the addition
of statement quantity.
locality of particulars vii
have effect In this the description supplemental
b. the references Land Commission Award the dec
Nakapuah the mortgage by Masohc appears
the marhas ded and the setting forth of the ntcndc
be Sold sufficient show that the marshal sold all of Mky
- n