The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-02-14

ExcEpToNs FROM CIRCUIT Court, FIRST CIReUIT
uBurrrp sEprrMBER 49, DECIDED JANUARY IS, 1901
FREAR CD, AND PERRY, j.
The probate court did jurisdiction
n; 81 decdent in proceeding instituted purpose
distinguished distribution of property
distribution of real prop
An adjudication question relationship in
ceeding probate property not
IN subsequent action Of eecment
did party or claimant
witness in the probate proceedings
e@ OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR. j
This is an action of eectent undivided onefourth Of
ahupuaa of Koholalele situated Hamakua Hawaii and
covered by Royal Patent 1921 L. O. A. 26B, to Kalakanoa
now called Kaikanoa The plaintiff claimed title by convey.
Keaa Koua and Aaaoa and set that these had
title by descent from Kapehe she by descent from Huak
by Kaikanoa the awardee and patenee
pleaded IN bar former Judgment in substance
that 18th day of January, 1871 Chief Justice Allen
the Hawaiian Supreme Court sitting in probate decreed
after hearing the petition Of F. Nahaolelua
of Kakano for allowance of his accounts and
declaration heirs of the that the accounts be
allowed and the administrator discharged and that SAID
Nahaoeua half brother and Hooana wife were the
Huakn and therefore in effect that Kapehe not
heir of Huakni The proceedings in the matter OF the estate
of Kaikanoa made part of the plea.
The plaintiff replied denying, among other things, that
Nahaoeua duly appointed administrator of the estate
Kaikanoa that notice of the hearing of his petition
given by publication otherwise Kapehe that Kapehe
party claimant the hearing that any valid decree
alleging substance among other things, that Kakanoa died
1885, and that the real property then descended to Huani
that Huakni appointed administrator by the supreme
Court 1851 and that after his death T. Nahaoleua
appointed his place by Circuit Judge of the
Island of Hawaii in 1862 that there then personal
property of Kakanoa be administered upon and unpaid
debts that the Circuit Judge had jurisdiction make such
appointment both because there personal estate and
because the Supreme Court had taken jurisdiction that there
petition for declaration of the heirs of the real estate
that there petition for declaration of the heirs OF
Huakni and that therefore the decree to his heirs void
because responsive the petition which for decara
ton OF the heirs OF kaikanoa that kapehe was not party TO
the proceedings that she married that her address
known p Nahaoleua, but that personal service
made her. that the published notice did conform the
rules of that the last publication less than weeks
previous the day of hearing that F. Nahaoeua not,
but that Kapehe blood of Kalikanoa the plain
tiff claims that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction
Kapehe approve the of P Nahaoleua admin
raor the real estate declare the heirs of Kali
kanoa of Huakn
The defendant filed onder the effect that the plea
sufficient, notwithstanding the replication.
In brief the defendant pleads former adjudication adverse
to the hesp OF kapehe through whom the plaintiff claims
and the plaintiff replies in substance that there such
adjudication binding on Kapehe.
It will be unnecessary all questions
regard to the validity the proceedings had in the of
the of Kailkanoa.
The Probate Judge had jurisdiction either declare the
hers OF kakanoa direct proceeding instituted for that pur
distinguished from proceeding for the distribution of
the estate portion thereof see this distinction Moss
Haecaiidn Government, Haw. 426, 1927
distribution of the real estate
Consequently, assuming that the petitioner the duly
appointed administrator of Kakanoa estate that there
his hands personal of the deedent be distributed that
there sufficient petition for its distribution and sufficient
notice OF the hearing that the Chief Justice had jurisdiction
act that adjudication of heirshp the personal prop
ery was made and that such adjudication binding
SUBJECT matter the personal property the question
whether such adjudication of hehp probate with respect
the personal property binding upon the plaintiff this
OF ejectment with respect the real property
Whether would be binding Kapehe through whom the
pantH CLAIMS appeared the probate proceedings
question upon which there might be difference of
opinion (see Mosman Ha0aiian Governments supra 1927
but that would not be binding unless she did appear party
in those proceedings settled by the decision case
in opinion she did appear
Let that she could appear alone be bound as
party though she married The proceedings
occurred before the passage of the Married Womens Act The
record makes mention of her husband although it shows that
Hanakauani Holt who party and who claimed under
the relationship that which Kapehe stood was a
ciated with her husband in those proceedings
The record does not show that Kpehe appeared party
The clerks minutes of December 81 1870 the first day of the
hearing show, Petitioner present with R. G. Davis H