The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-08-08

made in the lessons a
which alteration it is sucien to
modify only.
THE COURT BY FREAR GU
The plaintiff corporation, lessor, and the defendant,
lessee executed in duplicate lease dated August 1894 of
tain rice lands situated Kapaa Kauai each retaining copy
OF the eae the lessee afterwards committed breaches of
nant to sell others than the lessor without the lates
consents the lessor finding that forfeiture could be enforced
under the terms of the lease for breaches of this in
formed the lessee that unless change made the lease
whereby such forfeiture could be enforced the lessor would
making advances OF goods and money him. had been
doing voluntarily, and would seek the advances
already made well damages for breaches the covenants
the lessee agreed the proposed change and thereupon
page of the lessons copy Of the destroyed similar
page with the addition of clause of forfeiture substituted
and both parties executed the lease thus modified the lessor
requested the lessee bring his copy be modified the
manner which the latter promised do but did, the les
sors manager who acted for throughout forgot about the
matter Of changing the ee copy and with the lesee know
edge and acquescence acted thenceforh belief that
lease in force only modified and absaned from pursuing
the remedy law for the former breaches and continued
make advances until the indebted it of
S99O5 1896 the lessee again committed breaches of the
mentioned and the lessor by manager who
not awarhat the ee copy did correspond with the les
so entered under the forfeiture clause which had been inserted
in its and dpoesed the lessee and retained
of its former estate 1897 the lessee brought action against
the lessor for S07 s4s50 damages for alleged unlawful dpo
session and the trial. in 1898 produced his copy of the original
lease which did contain the forfeiture clause and obtained
verdict for 500 442O the lessons copy of the lease modified
having been refused admission evidence the lessor being
able the explain the discrepancy between the doc
uments its former out of the country after
wards the lessor having learned the facts from its said former
manager moved for trial the grounds of newly dis
evidence and excessive damages and obtained order
for trial the latter ground then brought this bill for
specific performance compel the lessee change his copy of
the original lease conform copy of the lease mod
fed and for the lessee from using
rcsentng the trial otherwise valid and binding his
copy of the original lease.
The foregoing are substantially the alleged in the bill
and found by the Circuit Judge who granted the relief prayed
for The defendant this his appeal does question the find
IL az
the relief asked for the reason among other things that has
an adequate remedy at law. In this agree with him.
IL clear that plaintiffs object seeking specific performance
defendants promise alter his copy of the original lease
obtain benefit under the lease but merely prevent
the defendant from using his original copy plaintiffs disad
vantage the action for damages The lease and the estate
thereby created have determined The object seeking specific
performance the that in seeking injunction namely
the defendant from asserting his copy of the original
still in force In Scr Gardner, Al Mich 164, 1t
is true specific performance ordered of agreement to
modified lease after its expiration, the remaking
among other things that The parties may have rights
requiring 1.-THE leases determination, and do no HARM
But the of the differed somewhat from those here
sene There the original lease apparently had taken
eec possession have been wronguy procured by
Of the defendants who then wronguy assigned interest
another and the modified lease had been executed
there dispute its these not having been
reduced TO writing The court evidently would
tanned the bill for specific performance alone for it said that it
certainly anomalous grant relief in the form of specific
performance of lease which has expired and that he main
relief cancellation of the first lease which properly
ordered In the present the first lease had taken effect
the modification had been reduced writing and OF the
modified had been executed by both parties and
Of the lessor and the lease had expired No reason
suggested why specific performance of the promise to alter the
other copy should be ordered except to the defendant
from using support of his action for damages In our opn
ION this proper for specific performance unless that
relief be justified necessary equitable remedy designed
accomplish the results would be accomplished by the
collation. of the defendants original lease by injunction
against his setting up in the action at law. We therefore
TO question suggested PATIENTLY by the plaintiffs
for an Injunction
Could the plaintiff his rights under the modified leas
Inv way Of defense the action law The presiding Judg
held NJ the first trial that could but that the
sumption that the copies in the possession of the respective
rtes had executed the time and coHnterpart
aAor snch that the lessee