The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-01-13

The plaintiff leased the premises in question: rsata-
non, July 1891 term Of fourteen years at an annual
rental of $1,000 payable -cmiannuay advance TO Eaou
Tai Wal and Company the third OF follovin- Sep
TENDER assigned the lease the defendants Wing Chong Wal
Company who in the day mogagcd the same to
the defendants Sing Chong Il Company
The forfeiture relied on are breaches of covenants
~ to keep the premises fenced 0 alloy the an unre-
ced right of way twelve feet wide through premises and
(3) that the lessor should have the unrestricted right of two
inch flow of water from the aran well the premises The
lease contained the usual provision that upon breach Of any
OF the covenants the part of the ees their executors admin
raors or assigns the lessor her executors administrators
assigns might without demand and thereby de-
termine the lease and the estate thereby created.
The lessons husband agent last accepted rent on july
l. 1885, in advance for the ensuing half year 9th Of
the following November entered upon the premises gave
written notice of the determination of the and demanded
possession for breach of the mentioned This action
was begun the 9Th of December following
At the close of the plaintiffs case the defendants moved to
dismiss the action to Sing Chong Co the ground Of mis-
onder for the that they shown possession
to be tenants of the plaintiff This was overred and
defendants excepted 1t is conended the plaintiff
that nasmuch the lease assigned Sing Chong Co.,
although security only they be held to have the legal
title and to be liable agne whether in possession not
upon all the that with the land Hop Sing Co. T.
hdm ON, Haw IA; Cartwright o. Widemann, 8 Haw 693
Let us that such is the law 1t does necessarily follow
that summary proceeding of this kind properly be brought
against them if they possession essees them
selves whether they had mogaged lease or not would
likewise be liable upon their would not neces
ar follow that summary proceedings could properly be brought
against them if they not in possession
The contemplate not only that the relation
of landlord and should also that the tenant should
be in possession The proceedings wholly statutory and NAV
be pursued only far permitted by the Section 1879
of the statute permits the landlord proceed summay only
whenever any lessee or tenant shall hold possession
without right" &c. and Section 1850 requires it to
be alleged in the complaint chat the defendant posses
sion : = of the lands < which he holds I'M
lawfully &c. other declaration shall be recognized"
See also u Enc. Pr Pr and note 2 No doubt the mort
gagee interested in the result but the does not per-
init all persons in interest be made parties however desirable
that may be- permits those only made defendants who
in possession for the proceeding purely posassory
nature and does involve questions the object is
merely to put Of possession those who possession
KuaIand T. Yong Young, Haw 225
But may not the mortgages be joined landlords their
mogagors tenan In jurisdictions in which action of
ejecment may the title the land well right of Dos
session. landlords may be joined coeendants with their ten
I'm Wong T. Kan Chu, 5 Haw 225; Hale o. Maikai -
Haw and mortgages and mortgago been regarded as
holding the relation of landlord and for such purposes
Marin DenisOn 30 VT $50. But where eiectment is a
posor action only and does try the title landlords cannot
properly be joined codeendants with tenants and if they
are 50 Joined nonsuit may be granted them Demck
Dengcr 80 Cal AS Summary proceedings under
are as we have merely poOy and would therefore
to be analogous those actions of eecmen which are merely
possessory in which landlords properly Joined with
their tenants See oahu H. b. Co. An Yok II Haw AIS;
h"diaHa Yong Young supra Again. under the English
statute IL Geo IL 49, and similar in many of the
United States landlords be admitted their option to defend
actions of eecmen brought against their tenants although the
action must be brought against the in the
stance, and is held that mortgages and mortgagor
lords and tenants for such purposes Enc Pl G. Pr 3O7 312
But have such and proceedings were not
brought against the alone in the first instance have
the mortgages sought to be admitted to defend