The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-04-17
ATHERT0N
BRINGS SUIT
Wahiawa Premises
Have Cloudy
Title.
AN OLD DEAL
IS RECALLED
Plaintiff Has Asked EmmeIuth for
Deeds Which lie Refuses
to Hand Over.

]. B. Anterior has brought suit in the |
Circuit Court against the Wahiawa Su-
gar Company, to remove cloud upon the
title. In his complaint he says that on
and prior to April %, 1899, one George
and in actual possession of certain tracts
of land situated in the district of Waia-
lua, Oahu, containing an area of 2,4OO
acres and over.
On April 2S, 1899, George Galbraith ex-
ecuted, acknowledged and delivered to
tracts of land, reserving 400 acres for
term of forty-nine years from said date
at rental of IS per acre, and 81 per
ton for all sugar produced from the cane
raised on said premises that said rental
of IS per acre was made payable semi
date of said lease. That by instruments
dated April %, 1899, and June g. 1900, said
parties agreed upon supplemental terms
respecting said lease. That by assign
ment dated February 26, 1900 John EN-
meluth assigned to the Wahiawa Sugar
Company, Limited defendant, said lease
from George Galbraith to him above.
Second. That by an instrument dated
September Z, 1900 Galbraith leased to the
plaintiff all of the tracts of land named
in said lease from Galbraith to said John
Emmeluth. and also reserved land less
fifty acres of the same. That George
Galbraith by said lease to said John
Emmeluth, and granted and assigned to
the plaintiff the right to have exercise
and enforce all covenants, rights, condi-
lions reserved to George Galbraith or
made for his benefit in each of the
leases and the agreements made between
said George Galbraith and said John En-
meluth.
| Third. That the said Wahiawa Sugar
Company on October 2S, 1900, made de-
| fault in the payment of the rent of said
premises which accrued and became due
on that date for the period of six
months from October g. 1900, to April
Is, 1901, which said rent the plaintiff al
leges to be the sum of $4,000 for said pc
Rod, and plaintiff says that due demand
was made for said rent but that de-
ferdant wholly failed to pay said rent
or any portion of the same.
Fourth. That by the terms of said
lease from said George Galbraith to said
John Emmeluth it was provided thai
said lease was upon the condition that
in case of a breach of any of the cove
nants to be observed on the part of the
said lessee, said John Emmeluth, or his
| executors, administrators assigns,
| that the lessor or assigns might there
upon, without any notice or demand or
process of law, re-enter upon said prem
ises and thereby determine the estate
created by said lease, and might there
! upon without process of law expel and
remove forcibly, If necessary, the said
lessee and those claiming under him, and
their effects. That the plaintiff, exerc's-
ing the powers reserved to George Cal
braith in said lease from Galbraith to
John EmmeIuth, which had been assign
/ ed to the plaintiff by the lease and con-
Neyance from Galbraith, notified the de-
PENDANT on November 1, 1900, that the
! ia lure to pay rent due on October IS,
1900, for six months in advance, consti-
tuted a forfeiture of the lease and not
fed the defendant to forthwith quit and
remove from the lands named and not
to interfere with the possession of the
premises by the plaintiff. Thereafter
plaintiff entered upon and took possess
sion of all the tracts of land named in
pursuance of the condition contained in
the lease.
That the defendant was thereafter on
January q, 1901, notified that possession
had been taken of the premises by plain
| tiff and re-entry made in consequence of
a breach of covenant made by defendant
in consequence of a failure of defend
ant to pay the rent due and payable on
October %, 1900.
Defendant was duly notified that the
interest of Gal5raith had been assigned
to plaintiff. At the time plaintiff en-
tered and took possession, the premises
were unoccupied and vacant. The plain
tiff put agent in charge of said lands
and warned all persons from trespassing
thereon, and took open, notorious and
public possession of the lands, and has
since maintained such possession.
| In consequence of said breach of con-
dition made by the defendant and of re-
entry by plaintiff, said lease from Gar
braith to Emmeluth and the estate cre-
ated thereby, came to end and apsu-
lutely ceased and determined Defendant
has had no right, title or interest of, in
or to the premises named in said lease
from said Galbraith to Emmeluth.
Fifth. Defendant has not now any
fright, title, interest or estate in the
lands named, and does not intend, as
plaintiff is informed and believes, to as
sert or claim any such title; but never
Itheless the defendant though requested
to cancel said lease and to surrender the
same, refuses to do so.
| Said lease and agreements are not void
on their face and are capable of being
used to the injury of the plaintiff should
the defendant or his assigns at any time
seek to so use the same. Extrinsic evil
dence must be resorted to by the plain
tiff to show the determination of the
lease and agreements; in consequence
thereof and for the reason that said
lease and agreement constitute a cloud
upon the title of plaintiff and upon his
right of present possession, plaintiff is
without full and adequate remedy at law
and unless said cloud is removed, plain
tiff will suffer irreparable loss and in
jury.
Wherefore plaintiff prays the defendant
be decreed to produce in court the lease
and agreements from Galbraith to En-
meluth and to cancel and surrender the
same, and that the defendant may be