The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-10-28

deeds husband
formed by attorney of defendant that Hama conveying
only dover right by deeds neither said Hama Tor
her husband knew that right in
these lands that either of the deeds purTortcd convey any
other right That the consideration expressed in said deeds
$4,000 in ALL is grossly inadequate for and
Uni kukaan in said lands and that these plaintiffs account
of her detention at said settlement unable
mingle with people who familiar of property
and unable form value of the title
Of said Hama in said lands and induced accept said sum
through the wulv false and fraudulent representations Of the
defendants that said Hama had claim 10 said
lands other than right DOVER conceament of the
fact that said Hama heir of her said daughter through her
would inherit all left 10y Kapakah conceament
of the value of the said Hana lands That
before signing said deeds the said Hama consulted her attorney
in Honolulu by letter and advised by him sign them
that the said attorney advised without full knowledge
facts and misrepresentation of defendants that
the said Hama had interest in said lands other
interest That plaintiffs informed that defendant
claims that said foreclosure sale void by certain
alleged defects in the publication of intention
foeclose and of sale otherwise and that the date
deeds the said Hama entitled said lands simple
that by said deeds the title said lands became
defendant That upon being informed the said Hama
Kukaan declared said deeds void hereupon the
of protecting the plaintiff corporation and obtain
adequate consideration all her interest
in the said lands to the said plaintiff corporation.
The prayer for the cancellation of the deeds and
her husband to the defendant.
Copies the in the BILL includ
ing the affidavit the mortgage foreclosure to the
bill and made part thereof.
The defendant demurred grounds: a. That the bill
did not state facts sufficient constitute of action; 0
that it did show material concealed from Hama
her husband and 0 that uncertain in alleging that the
consideration inadequate without showing what title
est Hama and her husband had
The bill be based three grounds: % That
conveyed simple title reliance upon
that she had only dover right s) her ignorance what the
deeds pupored convey; and @ nadquacy of consideration
As the first of these grounds appear
allegations of the bill that Hama conveyed fee simple title
that she had any than dover right that she executed
the deeds in reliance upon false representation that she had
only dover right She shows that her former husband had
the fee simple title and that if he had disposed
would have inherited it, but she also shows he had disposed of
by executing which afterwards forecled and
consequently that she for the that she did the
had dover right and nothing True, is al
legged that the defendant claims that the sale
void by of alleged defects the publication of the notice.
&c. but such alleged defects pointed and such claim
may be unfomded 1t is also alleged Though with reference
the consideration only that induced accep.
named through the uy false and fraudulent
Of defendants agent had title other
right and from this might be inferred that she had other
title (not necessarily snple) but If such showing
merely by way of inference would be sufficient by ITSELF still
the Inference offset by the positive showing parts
the bill that she had only dover right.
Secondly, the allegation that llama executed the deeds
without knowing that they pupoed right title
interest other than dover right by this presume it Is
that she thought that neither Of her deeds contained
general words such all right, title interest," &c,
found in of the deeds but that each contained only such
specific words call ghto dover" found in the other deed
1t is difficult how she could have thought this considering
that she signed two separate deeds which woded differently,
and which she presumably read and in regard which she
suited her attorney before signing And she did read
the deeds but signed both thinking they the STILL it
nowhere alleged that the defendant attorney agent mis-
represented what the eed