The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-10-08
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE HAWAIIAN
ISLANDS.
JUNE TERM, 1898.


EXCEPTIONS FROM CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT.
Srp,,,rrrn Ir1y I 1898 DECIDED SEPTEMBER &C.
JUDI, CD, FREAE WHITING u.
Held under the
of covering after
acquired sufficient perfect his
protect drant of the chaes by the
although he the MORTGAGE retained
to take charge of the chates for him
OPINION OF THE COURT FREAR, J
This an action $6625 upon bond executed August
49, 1897 in Fred Harrison by Louis Marks princ
pal and J. A. Magoon surety. The condition of the bond
as follows The condition of this obligation such that
whereas said F. Harrison claims that the OF Six Hundred
and Sxtyone Dollars due him for rent of certain
premises being No 514 and $40 Fort Street And whereas
has begun dsint proceedings for the colec
ton upon cha in said premises and whereas the
SAIL T. Marks claims said chae mortgage
Now therefore in said L. Marks shall pay to
be paid to the said all that said Harrison
under the of the has right to
upon the said goods and chattes then tins obligation
be void otherwise remain in full force and virtue"
The defense was that the the bond had been
broken consequently that the plaintiff had not been damn
edfor he entitled astran the said
goods chattes the said date The Circuit Court jury
waived defense and Judgment for defend
ant and plaintiff now brings here exceptions
The Judgment of Circuit Court based several
grounds only of which need be considered by US namely
that plaintiff had right dstran because the defendant
Marks mortgage possession of the goods sought to be
distrained.
Our statute permits dstrant of the goods chattes of the
deautng tenant only also of stranger found the
premises Widemann Thomas, 10 Haw 81 The right to
distran exercised mortgage possession
under recorded mortgage of the chattes In question WM
denbero a. CAMPBELL 2O7 Cartwright Widemd"r
Haw 692 The main question in this Is whether the
defendant Marks mortgage in possession OF the chae
in question when the plaintiff attempted dan and when he
took the which the subject of this action 1t is unds
pued that the of landlord and tenant existed between
the plaintiff and one E. A. Williams who conducting
furniture undertaking business the premises IN question
and that the amount of the date question
as claimed.
The property on the demsed premises except portion there
Of which had been afteracqured in the of business be-
onoed originally to c. F. Williams father of E. A Williams
and had been sold him the said f. A. Williams and an
other son. H. Williams, and afterwards defendants cam
had sold Mary E. Williams, wife of T. A Williams
plaintiff contends that there valid sale to Mary t.
Williams In this decision we consider the property not be
longing her There three mortgages upon 1.-two OF
them dated June %, 1894, made G. T. Williams by
said respectively and afterwards assigned to j. A
Magoon Trustee by him assigned August g. 1891 to de-
PENDANT Marks and dated November 1896 made to de-
Marks by Mary E. Williams and E. A. Williams These
mortgages covered all aeracquired stock; this like
the original stock would be protected against drant in
the holder the mortgages possession before the dant
was made. See Phillips Z, McCheaaey Haw, go.
AS whether Marks took possession before the plaintiff
tempted stran there testimony follows: In the early
per of August 1897 Marks conclusion that he
ought to forecose Thursday August defendant Nagoon
acting attorney for Marks another attorney who then