The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-12-14


ignorance of the truth of the matter until the termination of
the former proceedings mentioned Very after the
rendering of the decision of this court that NATTER he filed
the bill of complaint in this case averrng substance of
the facts above forth and praying that Castle be ordered
him the land Wahee pay the of $1,000
in lieu thereof and for and all of the funds
ferred to him by complainant amounting in all to the
value of 1920 with from January IS 1897
prayer for relief added John and Antoine Nicholas
Ana Koleka and Mary Brown widow of George Fe another
of the deves also made parties defendant Mary
demurd the ground of mnder of parties defendant and
the court below held that she had been improperly joined None
of the other respondents except Castle filed other
pleading or made any appearance
The court below decreed that the respondent Castle pay
complainant the of 1920 with interest thereon from Jan
uary 2s 1897 From that decree the this
court the appeal of the principal respondent.
The defense mainly relied upon is that this voluntary
payment by the the agent of the eenant
his principal of law and that agent
cannot be held liable because long prior the receipt by
him of any notice the contrary he paid and delivered
the property his principal and that the administrators
remedy is by seeking the property wherever may be-
We of the opinion that the bar is within the
principle of the cited by the respondent support of that
contention. In making the suggestion request complainant
that all of the property of the be transferred respond
emit the latter acted doubt the agent of the nant but
in receiving and holding the property he acted such agent
but for the benefit of all the beneciares named in
the he held the
thereof the eenant but also preserve the principal
for the remandermen and distribute among the latter
the time and in the proportions provided for by the will The
deed of August 1885, from Cegon Castle referring the
administration of the the deeden recites that the
ganor DESTROYS of urreneng the said trust and said
grantee has consented the same and in its
habendum declares the property be conveyed Sin
theess the following and purposes that say during
the lifetime of Ana Momona widow of said Antonio Philip
pay her all the issues and profits thereof and
her death convey the the heirs and persons who
may be so declared by the be entitled thereto
The grantee all of the duties and responsibilities of
under the will Castle himself recognized this for he
declined his duty do either allow Ana Momona
the principal divide the property the request
Of the remaindermen and Ana Momon his alleged principal
e paragraph of answer and page of Castles evidence of
June 1890 and consequence Of this refusal that Ana
dissatisfied and finally prevailed upon Castle
hand the property Others; this he did still charging
with the same This be held have been pay
his principal The property excepting only the income
for life which there dispute did not belong the
eenant principal and regarded treated by the
respondent belonging her. The will provided Il give u
bequeath the of deceased friend Nicholas Anna who
resides with me, quarter of esateto George trel the
of another deceased friend George Fre who resides with
his mother quarter of my eaelo Antoine Manuel the
of my friend Manuel Ser quarter of my estateo
Nicholas Anna another of deceased friend
quarter estate for all of whom stood God Father their
baptism. do hereby nominate and appoint friend Edward
and him with full power and authority take charge OF
and Estate for the and benefit of the Legaee
herein named and finally distribute the the Legaees
who the remainder after we decease, upon
their sevealy becoming of age The respondent familiar
with these provisions and did intend to the property
person other than specified the WILL though 1t
said would have acted neggently permit
ting corpus the be scattered the shown
by the evidence and stated above.
The deed of the land and the transfer of the funds made
not solely through law but through mistake of fact
caused by the misrepresentation though innocent of the
pondent matters upon which he could easily have informed
himself The complainant might it have pursued the
trust property wherever the be found but the
hand he elect look solely the with whom
he dealt and consequence of whose representations he parted
with the trust
No laches be imputed to the complainant for he instituted
proceedings promptly upon first asceaning by the decree OF
the court the facts the of the remandeer
were otherwise had led by the respondent believe
that they
The fact that the title the land the respondent
by the complainant why he should be decreec
rrncipa of the in cash and