The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-05-14

against neighbor They have had numerous
So ana the various combinations on either SIDE nave been as
those law SUITS The defendant doubtless seized
this opportunity of peruadng the deceased to do what he had
often urged him to do.
The law kind requires the evidence FULL
clear and factory find that the evidence in this
admits of other conclusion than that the land bought by
the deceased for the defendant and that the defendant paid for
1t with his money! and that the deceased had
beneficial estate interest the land estate which would
ene his widow, the present plaintiff to dover therein 1t is
urged by the plaintiffs counsel that defendant having
cepted conveyance from deceased sopped this
to deny the title of his santor Upon the showing is
made IN this that if the deceased had
fused to make the conveyance court of equity would have de-
hat he was mere naked trustee OF the premises and
would have compelled him such The
TACT that the deceased fit do without the nerpoon
OF court OF equity should and opinion does pre-
JUDGE the defendant
therefore think that the evidence offered part
defendant tending dispute the deceased and to
deny seisin properly admitted and arriving
have accordingly considered the Upon this view of the
facts and the law applicable thereto find that bill should
be dismissed 1t is so ordered"
We have examined the find the evidence sup
ports the findings of fact of the trial Judge 1t enuousy
urged by counsel for plaintiff that resulted defendant
because the purchase money not wholly paid by him the
time OF purchase but this of the facts found
of the decision To be sure the father
Joseph Lazarus bid in the lot and deposited fourth part the
purchase the time declaring he purchasing
another party but buying another lot the
self At the time of the auction SALE Joseph Lazarus acquired
estate in fee otherwise the land only mere RIGHT to
complete the purchase and he then the
corngly the widow had no right of DOVER even # osenb
Lazarus had actually bid the lot himself he could have
sold the right acquired to another, abandoned right
and there would be dover interest At the completion
sale in January, 1891 the whole purchase money was paid bv
Alex j. Lazarus although the Royal Patent was issued in the
of Joseph Lazarus yet receipt for the purchase money
for this lot together with the Royal Patent given
Alexander j. Lazarus by Interior Depart
ment Possession taken by Alexander and he alone
csed rights of ownership the lot Although the Royal
Patent the Joseph yet was at no time the
with beneficial therein but merely holder of
the legal title trust for Alexander The facts proven have
brought this case within the law governing resulting
10 raise trust by implication, operation of law,
payment actual loan of the money by the ces que
the time of the purchase be shown esteem Steen
Johns Oh 2o) 10 create resulting trust where the pur
chase money paid by and the title another
the entire purchase must have been paid by party
part only be paid such part be pair aquo
part OF the property, fourth, third moety and
must be uncertainty to the proportion the property
which the trust extends. (OlcuH Bymun II Wall Al And
again must arise at the time of the purchase it cannot
arise by after advances Wood Fed 443 See also
Jackson Moore Cow 1875; Pinnock Clongh Vt 1922
Prescott Walker 16 n. H. 34o Sunderland Sunderland
10 La. 1926
Section 1906 of the Civil Laws provides that every woman
shall be endowed Of onehrd part of all the lands by
her husband at any time during marriage fee simple free
hold, DC, unless she is lawfully barred thereof
In order that the widow have DOVER the husband
be benefcay seized and therefore, there lands
held by the husband for persons 90 Am
Eng. I'd Ed. 1872; HaleH Parker, 80 At r. $685. Stan
rood Z. Deering IA Me. 29O)
wife is not entitled to dover any further
than her husband had beneficial interest therein
Walker, 16 n H. $40 Where husband seised of an estate
to hold in trust for another, it familiar rule wife
DE endowed OF such estate although manltestly
seised of the fee Hugunnin Cochrane ILL., 3O5; King
BUSHNELL 121 Ill ESQ., Hopkinson Dumas AZ n H. 296
White a. D,eu, AZ Mo- SOL
In his brief plaintiff claims that the circu
Judge erred in the admission and rejection testimony but
does not specify the particular and to
search the enographer ascertain them Counsel also
asks this court refer his brief filed in circuit court
this request has often been made by other in other cases
and have orally informed them that brief prepared
for and filed in the Supreme Court and declined to consider
the circuit court brief that of the Supreme Court The briefs
of counsel filed in the circuit do part of the
record Rules and of the Supreme Court require
the Supreme Court We call attention this not to reflect
counsel but that in the future all NAV realize that
circuit court briefs not considered by the Supreme Court
Appeal dismissed.
" A. HenshdH for plaintiff