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

profits We express opinion whether the value
improvements may be seo against claim for profits
here If the theory that this which
who has in good faith and under mistaken belief
his title the land claim the value
of such Improvements under circumstances still the
evidence nadbe for that rule holds only in equity and
action law Nahaolelua Kaaahu, Haw 662
This apparently the theory upon which the trial Judge
thought the evidence offered for appears by the
accompanied his ruling with the remark that he only
which that evidence be admitted by bill for par
ton" theory that the defendant could up
title the buildings distinguished from the land them
already seen, the value of the buildings mmater
upon question of title verdict could be given
defendant for the value of the buildings Defendant
practically asks this consider his offer of evidence and
the ruling thereon made respect of the title the buildings
and their value This cannot be done There offer
of evidence title and ruling upon the admissby of
such evidence We may add that Judge from the statements
in the court below forth stenogaphers notes as
well from the oral statements the hearing this
defendant relied upon legal title the buildings all
but merely equitable claim their value because they had
been put the land in good faith by those under whom the
defendant claimed The evidence appears have been offered
and the exception taken through misunderstanding of the
of Booth Kdpuakela, 10 Haw IA That suit in
equity for partition The plaintiff claimed exclusive legal
the buildings The held that the question of title had
been settled action of eectment in which the jury had
found that each party entitled undivided half of the
land and in which title the buildings distinguished from
the land had been set The court the opinion that
the legal title any, to the buildings might have been up
by the defendant in eecment and verdict rendered for the
plaintiff for the land exclusive of the buildings No equitable
claim the value of the buildings up in that and
the court expressed opinion upon such claim Cases of
the class to which Booth Kapuakea belongs be dn
guihed from those of the class to which Nahaoa Kaaahu
supra, belongs.
An exception taken the refusal the Judge to
the jury requested by defendants render verdict
for the defendants for the that the plaintiff had
veyed his interest in the land third party Wong Wa
Foy. One Witness lawyer, testified examination by
defendants counsel that he had drawn paper its face
deed but intended mortgage of this land from the plain
tiff to Wong Wa Foy to with which to the
of this suit supposed then to be about $780, but that
when afterwards asceraned that the expenses would
probably amount to about $780, Wong Wa Foy paid the
he had loaned the mortgage him up and
mortgage made to the witness for $4O0 Defendant
tends that there should have been by Wong Wa
Foy and that until such reconveyance the title in him and
in the plaintiff. It will be unnecessary the
ton of the theory of mortgages in this country with respect
the status legal rights of the parties thereto 1t well
tied that between the and stranger whatever
may be the rule between and MORTGAGE and those
claiming under the latter the right of possession the
also that payment of mortgage its law day prior
thereto by discharges the mortgage and the
entire title the mortgagor against the mortgage
without and this the evidence
such that the jury might have found that the mortgage
satisfied before the day upon which the debt which
secured became due On either of these grounds right
possession might have been found have been the
the plaintiff against the defendant This assumes of course
that the might have found that the deed
gage There ample evidence admitted from which the jury
might have found Whether such evidence admissible
that parole evidence action law that deed
absolute its face intended mortgages another
question and upon which is unnecessary for express
For such evidence fact admitted and
introduced by the defendant himself and without objection
from The question of its admsbty be and
is raised now.
The exceptions overrlled
W. r. Castle p L. Wearer and r. Johnson for plaintiff.
j. A. Mdgoon and " s. Edngs for defendant Kaioipahia.