The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-03-14


OPINION OF THE COURT BY WHITING
After the decision rendered by this Court in this
Adr'ch ct al Hasng ct al page 272 ante the
back the Circuit Court and bill of revvor brought in
the of Mary c. Aldch, Helen B. King, and Norman X
Brown, minor, by W. c. King, his friend against Pris
ella E. Hassnger and others including d. X Brown of
the defendants.
this bill of revivor D. X Brown filed an prac
ay admitting that the suit should be revived and also setting
up claim the whole of Martha Swnton her sole
heir and that the deed question obtained through du
and fraud and void To this the plaintiffs excepted
containing mpernent matter and the Court ordered the
latter part the stricken being impairment
The Circuit Judge decreed that the suit against W. j. Smith
revived against Priscilla f. Hassinger
Henrietta f. Ross and Annie H. Turton defendants and
that the said and proceedings do stand in the plight
and condition they the time of the death of w j.
Smith.
Thus the revived and ID. X Brown left
party plaintiff The parties being obtain hearing
and decision this Court entered foa, subject appeal
decree for the defendants in the original suit But ID. X
appealed separately his behalf from the decree
of evivo claiming that the Court ought have stricken
of his the adverse claims up by him, and also an
ing that he wrongfuly made party plaintiff, relying
former decision.
AS general rule bill of revvor puts in issue the question
suit and the parties, but
the merits of the original bill be put in issue and the
striking such from the of d. X Brown
right D. K Brown probably should have renewed his
stricken the a party plaintiff in the
Circuit Court the original after the decree of revival
continuously protested against being party plaintiff.
and in view of former decision, page 22 ante which
quote follows
"On the before Messrs. c. Creighton and
Rosa moved that they be allowed appearance
for Douglas e. Brown he is longer minor and this
being allowed he filed special plea follows and
who heretofore the institution of this
a made party plaintiff by his guar
ad te w c. King and nterposes this special plea and
specifically reerving himself all rights and prv
eges herein and the property involved in this action and
says that the time of the of this suit he
and has since become of legal that the allegation
plaintiffs bill herein in which he is described nephew
of Martha Swnon deceased not he claims and alleges
his knowledge, information and belief that he
of said Martha Swnton and her sole heir at law That
the said Martha died inesate and such sole heir
at law he entitled the whole of the real personal
Mixed of which said Martha Swinton died possessed and
That he does to be party plaintiff herein
and asks that his be stricken from the record
plaintiff.
An this plea filed by the other plaintiffs
ting up of D. K. Brown and other Objections
were made the caption and vercation of the bill of
revivor.
We hold the bill of revivor defective for of
signatures thereto that while it its caption and
introduction be brought by eight persons plaintiffs, in
fact none of said alleged plaintiffs except w c. King, have
signed either person, by counsel or by next friend that
ewing to this defect Douglas x Brown has been
party the suit of revvor although the bill of revivor
caption and body purpor to name him as SUCH and
that and also because of the matters alleged
his special plea his should be stricken from the record
as party plaintiff further that the decree appealed from
should vacated and the bill remanded to Judge of the