The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-07-01


motion for trial. it this bill of excep
tons.
1t is action of eecment possession of strip
land about thirty wide lying between Kahuu and Wal
uku, the Island of Maui and for nearly twenty years
last past used portion Of the
railroad
The railroad from Kahuui Waiuku constructed by
Mr. Thomas H. Hebron before September 2n, 1879 and after
tract of land including the land controversy had been leased
Mr. Claus Spreckels the Oh day of September 1892
Mr. sprecke easehod of the land in controversy together
with other land became documentary title in fee simple by
Royal Patent yfour thousand the coidea
ton for said Patent authorized by Act of the Legislature APP
proved July 21st 1892 being the satisfaction of certain claims
Of said Spreckes Crown lands Before the beginning of this
action February 9th 1885, Mr. Spreckes and his wife
executed deed of the land to the plaintiff corporation The
defendant corporation is Mr.. IIobrons grantee.
Thus far admits, the plaintiff perfect
documentary title
The defendant up five defences to wit:
holds the land in question under the
grant of a right way plaintiffs predecessor title
Claus Spreckels
g. plaintiff before the beginning of this action decided
the land in question the Maui R. R. & S. s. Co. and has
title therein.
g. The plaintiff is estopped by the covenant of its prede-
cessor title Crown Land Commissioners from interrupt
ing hnderng the defendant the using taking of the
land in question.
That the road located on the land in question in
sequence of parol license from plaintiffs predecessor de-
PENDANTS predecessor which license has become revocabe by
the expenditure of large of money by the defendant the
faith of the license
If the defendants original entry land,
license and without right. yet operating public rail
road thereon and the defendant having acquesced for the
period of eighteen years. maintain eectment but
is limited o action for damages.
Upon the dsputed facts of opinion that the fourth
defense a complete the plaintiffs Where the
established for the find whether they
estoppel." Hayseden Z. Wahneaea, 10 Haw. 10.
We do question doctrine, repeatedly held by this
court that acquescence, consisting of knowledge and
silence work eoppe unless because of special cir
cumstances, there is duty speak person has right
that others will enter and spend his
land except their without first searching the records
and making and if they neglect to pursue
the ordinary of ascertaning whom the title lies and
suffer the consequences it their folly They cannot blind
l take risks and then the loss if the who
done nothing encourage them in their action" Ndhaol
luo Kaaahu, 10 Haw. IS; Kea Pohulimo Haw 525;
Waoha q Ndho1owaa, 6 IIaw. 271.
But think that the mdsputed facts of this bring it
within the rule stated by Lord Dnman and frequently approved
by this that were by his words conduct wlfuy
another believe in the existence of certain state of
things and induces him that belief alter his
previous concluded from averring against
the a different of things existing at the time
Hayse7den Wohneaea, 10 Haw. 10; Kamohoi Kohclc,
IIaw. $50 AS Pomeroy puts it Pomeoy Equity, Vol ?
Sec approved in Goo Kim Holt 10 IIaw. 66O) f the
affirmative words
makes any representation would be in the highest degree
inequabe permit him say that the party who had relied
upon his conduct and had been med thereby might have
ceraned the faty his misrepresentation Or Swayne,
puts ()ckenson Co1grore. e. S approved in
10 Eaw 661) The vital principle that he who by his Ian
euage conduct leads do what he would other
have done shall subject person loss injury
by Disappointing the expectations upon which he acted Such
a change of position is sternv forbidden'
The evidence proves afrmavely, us that the