The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-07-30
OPINION OF THE COURT BY PERRY. ].

The plaintiff January H. 1901 the Circuit Court of
the First Circuit brought against the defendant action of
assumsit for five hundred dollars policy of insurance issued
by defendant in favor of plaintiff The property insured
destroyed by fire January 90 1900 copy of the policy
attached and made part of the declaration Clause
10 of the policy reads follows T furthermore hereby
expressly provided that action of any kind against
the said Company for the recovery of any claim upon UNDER
by virtue of this policy shall be susanabe any of
law equity unless such action shall be commenced
within the of months after any loss damage
shall occur; any such shall be
menced against the said Company after the expiration of
months after such loss damage shall have occurred the
lapse time shall be taken and deemed conclusive evidence
against the validity of the claim thereby attempted to be
enforced"
The defendant the below demurrd the decara
tion alleging three grounds to wit G That said complaint
does sufficient facts constitute of action
against said defendants 2 that in and by said
plant that said action commenced within the term OF
six months next the alleged loss damage occurred (
that it appears and by said complaint that the claim herein
ATTEMPTED to be enforced against defendant invalid The
demurrer was and the action dismissed whereupon
these proceedings instituted The ruling of the Circuit
Court sustaining the demurrer is the only alleged
The main question presented whether the limitation by
the parties to of insurance of the time within which
action may brought thereon to period shorter than that
esord nv the statute of limitations valid void being
AGAINST public policy We of the opinion that the limitation
s yald While the courts few States have held to the
contrary the great weight authority support OF this view
See Nav on ms Sec 47S Joyce lns Sec $751; 10 Am
g. Emo Ency Law End Ed 3s5, 1885, Riddesbarger Hart
ford ms Co. Wall 1856; Vette o. ms. Co., 80 Fed $685.
Woodbavv Sapinqs Bank ms Co., 81 Conn SIT; Nelson
- ms Co Is S. E. (Ga) 1s9; ms. Go. o. WhitehH 25 ILL
AGO. 4mesburu o. ms Co., Gray 500; Fullam a. ms Co..
cy e1 Lam D. accident association "a Mich 1853; Glass
- Walker &c Mo- 80; Patrick q. ms Co.. 43 N. H 621;
goe1e, - ms Co. So N. H. 469; ms Co. o. PhoendD on
e Candle Co 81 Pa ST. 449; Broaon ms Co., R. l. 1914;
suoos ms Co., II Tex 579; Wilson ms Co., 81 Vt SO;
ond K;11os u ms Co.. % Wis 472, 1872 We know OF no
founded ON public policy for declaring such limitation
void on the contrary weight of also clearly IN
favor of sustaining such stipulation There IS no principle
Of common law forbddng such condition ORIGINALITY there
was no limitation actions. The hst statute OF hmiauons,
which has been substantially followed provided that suits IN
caes should be brought within six years. and not after
wards But there nothing the act which forblds mlt
ton short of this PERIOD by agreement OF parties 1t only pro
49,. - - oar six wears There be doubt that prior
20 the statute it would been competent for the pare by
,ae IN their contract to limit the time within which suit
t no brouebt There nothing in the act necessarily OF
M fair construction taking away the right And the adoption
a b condition is based upon grounds OF prudence and
ol; which must challenge the general approval on
m Soc AIS snder light of these principles 1t IS dlcut
- discover any objection parties limiting the tune WITHIN