The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-05-24
COURT NOTES.
iron Wednesday, pafyb
couRr NOTES

the estate OF iSaaicwai Pearson has nj
90 hia nnal account. charging himself
with tsm and asking 10 he allowed ie2o o.
ana petitioning for allowance OF accounts
and snal distribution and discharge An
order has boon Issued Swing notice that
the hearing Of such petition will be had
on Monday, July l. 81 10 o'clock n. NJ.
The defendant IN the case OF J. a. Ma
COON vs. Louis Marks has flied his hill OF
exceptions and transcript on appeal.
DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.
In the action for divorce OF Llbana de
NobrcEa VS. Sylvano de Nobrega, the de-
PENDANT yesterday filed an answer to the
amended complaint OF plalntlr.
In addition to the general denial of all
the allegations Of the complaint, the de-
PENDANT alleges that on April 10, 1899, he
conveyed by deed. In fee simple, to Joe
de Nobrega, son OF PLAINTIFF and defend
ant a certain house and lot In Nuuanu
valley of the value of $500, with the OH
ject. purpose and understanding that the
same would Immediately be conveyed to
the plaintiff for her sole use, benefit and
maintenance; the said premises were so
conveyed on April IL. and that she has
ever since been in possession of same.
Also that from September Is, 1898, to
January %, 1901, defendant paid to plain
tiff the sum of Sc per week for their sup
port and maintenance, and that ever
since the latter date he has been at all
times ready and willing TO pay the same.
although plaintiff has failed to demand
and receive sad So per week.
]. NJ. Long is attorney for the defend
ant.
CHRISTLEY VS.. MACON DECISION.
The Supreme Court yesterday render
ed decision in the equity case of Thomas
Christley VS.. }. A. lagoon and Emme
line M. Magoon, which was submitted on
December 26, 1900. The decision was in
favor of Christley.
The case was n suit to cancel q deed
dated November O. 1885, from plaintiff to
defendant Emmelne NJ. Magoon OF 2.47
acres of land on the easterly side of Fort
street, between School and Vineyard
streets, in Honolulu: the consideration
named in the deed was $4,000, although
the real consideration was an oral prom
Use to pay the plaintiffs debts, amount
ing to $1,000 and written promise to
pay the plaintiff SIS per month for the
remainder of his life.
The deed was held to have been pro-
cured through undue influence, as shown
by the existence Of the confidential re-
of attorney and client and
principal and agent between the parties.
and the inadequacy of the consideration.
The grounds relied upon are fraud and
mistake.
The opinion is by Justice Frear, and
Judge Edings sat in place of Justice
Perry, disqualified. Hatch and Silliman
and ]. T. De Bolt were attorneys for the
plaintiff, and Kinney, Ballou & McClana-
han for defendant.
The syllabus of Justice Frear's opinion
shows that for two years preceding the
execution of the deed ]. A. Magoon had
been the plaintiffs agent in respect to
the plaintiffs property in question. col
lecting rents. paying taxes. ETC., and adj
vising him professionally in matters of
law; that plaintiff trusted him implicitly;
that plaintiff was simple and absent
minded and susceptible to influence: that
plaintiffs wife had left him and that he
was worried with money troubles and
cares that he was GO years of age, and
was carpenter and a dairyman; that he
worked hard and was troubled with ILL
health; that he was greatly discouraged;
that his property had been purchased
with his own hard earnings; that on
October 81, 1898, the defendants paid
plaintiff visit and after talking over
the plaintiffs troubles, an agreement was
entered into, whereby the defendants Of
fered to pay him SIS per month for the
remainder of his life, and to pay off his
"a 600 debts in return for the property;
that the plaintiff, wishing to escape the
cares and responsibilities of the property,
agreed to this and signed the deed, the
consideration being grossly inadequate
to the worth of the property, the rentals
alone bringing in $l13 or more per month,
and the property of the value, at the
minimum estimate, of 5000; that sub
nj nj u,ifa rntn 70
him and they became reconciled. and
that plaintiffs eyes were then opened to
the nature of the business deal he had
made. The opinion then concludes:
we need not go into the question as
to whether the plaintiff. as he now
claims, thought he was signing a deed in
trust for his children, subject to the pay
ment of SIS month to him for life out
of the rents There Is certainly much
evidence that it is difficult to reconcile
with that theory, well as some in
support of 1t. We may even assume that
the defendants thought they were being
toward the plaintiff, at
least to the extent of thinking that the
new arrangement was better for him,
all his troubles, than the
old. But In view of the then existing re-
lationship of principal and agent with
reference to this property, the relation
ship of attorney and client. the plain
tff's weaknesses and his trust In the
the defendants interest in
the transaction, and the inadequacy of
the consideration, equity must on we'll
principles undo the transac-
ton. The presumption from such rela-
is against the defendants. 1t is
for them to show adequacy of consldera-
ton and that the parties were dealing
with each other at arms length or that
they advised and acted with reference
to the plaintiffs interests, as II the lat
ter had been dealing with third party.
The plaintiff. while he may have under
stood that that was done which was
done, apparently did not fully realize
what 1t all meant. lie trusted to the de-
PENDANTS to do what was best for him
The presumption OF undue influence
arises from the existence of the fiduciary
Or confidential relationship, Such rela-
ti6nship In this connection has broad
II includes the relationship of
attorney and client and even that OF