The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-11-19

OPINION OF THE COURT F.. NJ. HATCH, Esq.
re-
The plaintiff this court on exceptions Inc errors
complained of are: % the granting of defendants motion
for nonsuit at the of plaintiffs evidence; ~ the re-
fual OF the reopen the case tor the purpose Oh
allowing plaintiff introduce additional evidence lhe
ground for the motion the failure OF the evil
dence to show the right possession of the premises IN the
plaintiff at the of the action 1t Is admitted
by plaintiff if the evidence disclosed valid outstanding
lease the motion properly allowed
The plaintiff instituted eectment in the be
low in the month of May 1892 against the defendants Ho
Hee with process and made the
suit The defendants Kauai served and appeared and de-
Tended.
The evidence produced by the plaintiff disclosed the follow
ing that the year 1892 lease executed to Ho Hee
for the premises in dispute and an additional
ten years. payable semiannuay; that Ho Hee paid
rent under up October 1885, that in January
s99 paid the plaintiff and that in October 1899,
the assigned whether not with the consent OF the
plaintiff does clearly appear that in the latter part OF the
year defendant Kauai asserted claim part OF the leased
premises and Ho Hee if he did take lease from
him to execute lease japanese; that Ho Hee accepted
lease from Kauai part of the premises claimed by him;
that Ho Hee taking this lease by contendng
that John K Sumner his lessor had refused to give him
assurances that he would protect him against the claims OF
Kauai; that he Ho Hee specifically dcamed intention
of dpung denying the plaintiffs title by the acceptance
of said lease from Kauai paid both parties and
recognized so far could the title of each and claimed
regard them both good.
1t is contended by plaintiff that the of taking the
lease by Kauai psO fdctO forfeiture of his
lease from the plaintiff that this severed and terminated the
relation landlord and between them and that from
forward Ho Iee trespasser the premises
Taking lease from adverse claimant by Io Hee
with his duty his landlord and would ente
the landlord to enforce forfeiture against the tenant for that
reason if landlord should elect do The law guards
ieaosy the possession which landlord his tenant
1t places upon the absolute unqualified duty Of pre-
serving the possession landlord Some TO the
extent in the landlords declaring the aornment to
stranger void against public policy Byrne ~ Beeson
Douglas 179 Mich Fuller Street, 80 Mich. 237
AN attornment shall work pass interest
to make bad grant good, give man tenancy by
diseisn intrusion or abatement Shepherds Touch 254;
Krrt= Cummings "a Penn. St 35i Perkins a. Potts %
N W. 936.
carefully this right of possession of the landlord guarded
by the law that tenant is dispute the title of his
landlord until he has restored the landlord possession OF the
premises and this principle strictly applied all who deal
with the and obtain possession from through him
during the continuance of the original Fleming NILS
III.
The landlord however, his right upon
forfeiture The in bar easily distinguish
from WiHiSon Watkins, Peters - and Pcyton Sth
Peters In each Of these the only
attorne stranger but refused pay his landlord
and expressly repudaed the tenancy The positive and
press reputation of tenancy circumstance which
in those led the 70 at an end
In the absence of such direct rNdaton hold that the