The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-03-10


ascertain their boundary from the description their own
Patent and they do their bill IL
only far the boundary the N Patent may
be untrue and include portion of Waupe that they snow
themselves preiudiced and it clear said above that Dill
to establish boundaries appropriate bill obtain re-
lief case EQUITY such bin back OF
the Awards and Patents of two lands TO ascertain anu
fix what originally intended supposed have been the
boundaries between those lands.
The other ground relied give equity jurisdiction to
establish the boundary that the defendants, alleged with
reckless disregard of the rights of the COMPLIMENTS cut
considerable portions of the ledge of rock surrounding
and ovehangng the spring called Papaea and dug "a large
hole in the ground and above said spring. that any
boundary marks that may have previously existed at the places
dug into have been deaced and ot and thereby
made impossible ascertain the existence and locality OF
certain mark of mentioned the survey OF SAID lana
of Nu which the ROYAL Patent based, and
which said mark asceraned would determine whether the
survey of the eastery boundary line of plaintiffs said land OF
Wape ending its description shows at the at spring
of water called Paaea comedies with the earlier survey OF
defendants said land of Nu beginning its description shows
rock marked maka southwest of this land
by spring of water Joining Waupe at sea- and which SAID
mark would Establish the of the boundary line be-
tween said lands claimed"
The substance of these allegations is that defendants with
reckless disregard of companans rights removed boundary
mark any existed 1t is alleged that any mark existed
The mark mentioned in the Niu survey only 1t is clear
that the mark ascertained would show alleged whether
the boundary of Wailupe comedies with the western
boundary of Niu that would establish the boundary
between these lands IF the description of the boundary in the
Niu untrue uncertain and detective alleged the
survey would be of little if any, value IT, the other hand
that description and certain the boundary would coincide
with the boundary described in the Wailupe survey if that
true alleged in which the of Waupe would
have nothing do with the existence of mark mentioned
in their survey Tt shown alleged that the bound
airy be without asceranng the
location of the mark question, without the assistance of
equity That such allegation necessary Story Eq.
Jur Sec e20 Ne Haa1kns IS Tex 600 On the contrary,
far appears the compliments survey sufficient itself
and monument mentioned therein has been disturbed
But aside from the question of the Importance of the existence
location of the mark referred the removal of the
mark although with reckless disregard of compliments rights
would not give equity jurisdiction It is well settled that
confusion of boundaries destruction of boundary marks
although occasoned by the of the party complained
not sufficient to give equity Jurisdiction The remedy, if any,
in such cases at law To give equity jurisdiction there
be special equity such fraud relation between the
parties which makes it the duty of of them preserve the
boundaries the prevention of multiplicity of suits Story
Eq. Jur, Sec 619 ct seq. In Speer C,noer Mer no.
not appearing that the confusion had been occasoned by the
acts neglect of the of while they
essees of the other the Master of the Rolls dismissed BILL
asking On what principle court of equity interfere be-
tween two Independent propreor and force Of them
have his rights tried and determined in any than the
ordinary legal mode in which questions of property are to be
decidedg In Walker y. Leslie, IA S. w Ky) 6s2 it was
alleged that the defendant had opened the fence the
described the petition the division line setting
up different division line which would increase his acreage
but the court held that there equity because relation
shown between the parties making the duty the defend
ant to preserve the boundary In Tmes Marsh 81 Pa
St 5O7, it alleged that the defendants had down
fence and done other interfering with companan rights
The court dismissed the bill for of equity In Weherbee
Dunn, SO CAL 249 alleged that the defendant had
moved division fences and that the boundaries become so
confused that they could not be asceraned without of
equity The held that was no ground for relief in
equity See also King Brigham % Or. 262 and Wilson
Hart 90 Mo- 618 In the present compliments and
defendants Independent propreto relation
exist between them making the duty of the defendants to
preserve the boundary marks preserve mark
which is mentioned in their survey only. The allegation
that the defendants in removing the rock acted reckless
disregard OF compliments rights does not show fraud the
part of the defendants.
Now taking the other vewhat the bill is remove
cloud it is alleged merely that the defective and uncertain
boundary line described in the Nu Patent Award
cloud upon the title of Waupe and the prayer that that
Award and Patent be reformed and that the cloud be otherwise
removed by the settlement of the boundary Tt evident that
the bill be sustained bill reform the Award and
Patent for mention other reasons there no alega