The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-04-28


nership.
But 1t Is conended that only
or Mrs Brown or both of them agreement
favor OF plaintiff \ license IN the law of real
property IS an authority % do particular or
series of acts upon anohers land without possessing
any estate therein IS Ency $50; Wash r. p
go 1t is personal privilege assgnabe ceases upon
the death OF either party and revoked by sale of
the hcensor But the agreement expressly binds the
administrators and assigns of the parties whether pula
ton the for the personal services the plaintiff in
conducting the business would not raised
the demrrer) If the question passes the plain
tiff right the definite term for specific pur
pose the grazing thereon of cattle creates Interest the
land and therefore does revocabe at the
will of the censor and inmaera whether
Mr. Brown in the marital right Mrs Brown
the then to the partnership consisting of her husband
and the plaintiff The evident parties
demise the pastuage of the land question plaintiff
term OF Is and Mr. Brown shared In the profits part
of plaintiff This in writing signed by the parties
and supported by valuable considerations moving
tiff He furnish number of CATTLE put up
mountain fence and register brand the joint
brand of the allow the
market onehaf of the cattle allowed himself under
IN the slaugherng company to attend to and all the
business of the without charge pay half the
the property used by the concern half the the
of Wakakalaua oneha of the repairs buildings fences
and covenants not to purchase kuleanas in Waipo
The numerous e. the lands now
used for the cultivation of ka, fish ponds the
fishery, the land used making SALT lot; the
house lot and vegetable garden mauka paddock
tween the house and depot and small paddock aka of
house That the intention of the parties place the dis
posal of the partnership all the land of Wapo paurage
ceptng only the portions reserved by Brown made clearer
the clause Tha should any the United
ment desire purchase the peninsula Pahao any
portion thereof the shall be sold free and clear this
and without any claim for damage by
the party of the first by Of such sae Certainly
the parties thought that all of Wpo part of which Pahao
placed by the in the of the copartnehp
pasrage would need clause of the above character allow
any part of be sold the range cattle
diminished without claim for damage the part the plain
tiff Is it nfeable from this special parties
intended that the whole land dedicated pastur
purposes of the partnerships by defend
ant that the clause that Pahao may be sold without
damage by plaintiff shows that the parties have chosen the
forum for redress lac court for damages and excludes the
Jurisdiction of court of equity enjo the execution of
lease by defendant which would diminish pastur
age We hardly think that plaintiff intended be restricted
to law court by this language He thinking of redress
general and willing forego whatever remedy he would
have the sale to the United States Government should take
place. We hold that the intention of the parties the agree
part with the occupation all Wapio
except the reserved portions the partnership pastuage
cattle put the land breed Whether
this be called license coupled with interest," executed
license lease immatera seems to be more
like lease than any other neestso far the Of the land
concerned And this affected
by the interest which Brown had reserved the partnership
lieu of rent And lease that gave partner
ship either right make whatever of the land
it chose The interest of plaintiff in the land limited his
of for the food and produced of the
cattle of the partnership and he could purpose
essential this purpose. Then why could the defendant
divert portion of the land sale from special
which devoted by the agreements 1t could if
by doing the interest of the plaintiff coparner injured
averred the bill that such an produce