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

nment to stranger did po faeo terminate the lease
from Sumner That gave the landlord rleh' % 0
which he could assert or at his pleasure
In Wilson T. Watkins quotation IS maze i
R1daIo showing clearly the obligation upon the lndo
assert forfeiture If he claimed one Lord he
That the aornment viii not affect the rsh' %
Iono as he has a right consider the person hoie
sion as his tenant But he has the power 10 P
g bi tenant in dsavowing by proceeding 70 ~
him, notwithstanding the Lease if he VIII not Pf0o ~
-, ft,re he has no right affect the rights OF 'nlu P
~ tho oonnd that the possession was destroyed; anu '
nst be a limitation to this well as every other uen
~ ~ ~ this noint comes clearly within the rule Land
down bv this court Rice .. Spoone' IL Law. OIL ~
hold that mere breach of condition does not OF le1 "oA
forfeiture ut merely gives the grantor the right to enforce
forfeiture This right he may waive 1t not claimed
h w act was done in of the right OF forfeiture
+ Ho TIee other than the filing of this suit As Ho Hee
WIS not served with process and made appearance TINS can
not be said any notice to him OF the pant
- 1; forfeiture The conclusion follows that at the time
Of the commencement the lease of 1892 was valid
and outstanding and portion OF the term unexpfeo Inc
right of possession not in the plaintiff
The view we taken of this renders the offers OF
proof made by the plaintiff immaterial.
The exceptions oveaTued
r. HcCqnts Ste,oart and Holmes & Stanley for plaintiff
Kanev BaAou ee McCtanahan for defendants
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF
OCTOBER TERM 1901.
HARVEY r. HITCHCOCK, LAWRENCE II. DEE, HAIR
ny l. EVANS and CHARLES J. FISHEL, on behalf
of themselves all other stockholders In the hamaio
Sugar Company, Limited, FRANK HUSIACE
TT
AAIO SUGAR COMPANY, LIMITED
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE, FIRST CIRCUIT
SUBMITTED OCTOBER 12 1901. NOVEMBER 8, 1901
GA1BRArH AND Percy ~, ]. w. CATHcARr, ESQ, OF
THE BAR IN PLACE FREAR, CT, ABSENT
bin answer were allowed after the close
of the amendments presented new ana
original pleadngs and that under
the the court to refuse to receive
support of the avemen OF
the amendments to enter decree against the
respondents without hearing such evidence.
OPINION OF THE PERRY,
(Gabrah j. dissenting9
The compliments brought bill in equity the main alega
tons follows that about the 8h day
of Nav 1899 respondent corporation organized with
a capital of million dollars divided into fifty thousand
par value of twenty dollars each that the SAID
purchased by large number of persons residing
in the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere and that the complain
ants became stockholders in the corporations that the
respondents Hustac Ean and Foster the promoters OF
the cororation "a" about the Goth day of April
A. D. 1899 incorporation of the said company
the sale defendants such promoters held and proposed
said plaintiffs and their associates that corporation
should be formed for the purpose of raising and culvatng
sugar and doing general plantation business the
Island of Mooka Hawaiian Islands, be called and known
the Kamao Sugar Company Limited, and that in order
do that intending stockholders IN said