The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-24
.,,opralF COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII.
,,,rp1sTTFY Z. j. A.,MAGOON and EMMELINE
NJ MAGOON.
FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE, FIRST CIRCUIT.
DECIDED MAY p, 1901.
DECEMBER TERM, 1900.

recraprR %, 1900. DECIDED MAY q, 1901.
~ GnBRArH J., CIRCUIT JUDGE ED1Nas, IN
PLACE OF PERRY, j., DISQUALIFIED.
~ been procured through undue nfuence-as shown
oce Of the confidential relationships attorney and
plainf and the inadequacy of the consideration
20 show a,quiescense or ratification when done while
Of the defendants the plaintiff continued though
minatfon Of the relationships of attorney and client
,ndpa and agent
grnt5 TO tender grantee before suit what the
@ be relied on the question raised in the
~ and when the granor alleged his bill that he had
an accounting which had been refused prayed for
ng and the grantee received and profits and
Oear how much grantee paid or on account
Dtor and the grantor offered hearing in the
+ 10 pay whatever grantee had paid his account
circumstances grantee under deed obtained through
nsuence be for grantor and
convey The property to him subject to leases made after
sadon Q the deed.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR CT.
,grt 10 cancel deed, dated November ?, 1895 from
IA to the defendant Emmene NJ Magoon, of 247
nd On the easterly side of Fort street between School
nd streets in Honolulu. The consideration named in
$4,000 but the real consideration was an oral
paw the plaintiffs debts amounting to about $4,000
promise of both defendants to pay him SIS month
Under Of his life The debts were in fact paid though
[on Of them not until after the commencement of
ni relied upon are fraud and mistake In our opin-
are appealed from granting the relief prayed for
beet to the modification hereinafter mentioned
On the ground that assuming that the defend
ap act fairly and justly towards the plaintiff in the
lnd thought they did so, yet considering their rela
n and influence over him, his weaknesses, and the
n0mt Of the consideration, the transaction was
Fanno uphold It will not be necessary to review
u yonminons testimony and lengthy briefs, all of
ave carefully examined
years Immediately preceding the execution of the
the date of the deed the defendant J. A. Magoon
nd was the plaintiffs agent in respect of the property
He collected rents, prepared tax returns, paid
accounts and from time to time rendered statements
ne also advised him to special matters of business
Sh connection with this property, such as the cree
ans the sale of personal property, and advanced him
y During this period the said defendant, who
Sav also acted for or advised the plaintiff profes
Nous occasions, with reference to claim arising
instruction of building upon this land, assault
the plaintiff the obstruction of right of way
aPpurtenant to this land, the possibility of the
'llng divorce from his wife, and drafting deeds
Just what capacity he intended to act is not alto
4s'ery ease-whether agent, attorney at law or
Dunng this period he was the only one employed
''Fney by the plaintiff AT the time of the trans
aan ne was acting as plaintiffs agent in relation to
'na had Just advised and assisted him as to pub
mat ne the plaintiff, would not be responsible
-'''ed BY ms wife and offering his personal prop
'-l MS real property for lease and acting as
ualung lease of portion of the property and
attorney In drafting the deed in question. He
defendant Emmeline NJ. Magoon, occasionally
'u'lI at MS home after office hours as was their
ny 10 number Of Mr.. Magoon's clients and took
y Tue plaintiff and performed various acts of
nm Mr.. Magoon is an attorney at law and
" Much experience in land transactions.
"eLshman some sixty years of age. He is
WY ana good workman at that. He also car