The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-24


the dover right Looking at the from defend
ants standpoint they had only pay of the plaintiffs
debts and then out of the of the property itself paw S7
month during the plaintiffs life, retaining the
come themselves during which period plaintiff wife would
no rights whatever IN the property and after the plaintiffs
death they would have the property without the obligation to-
pay the $75 month though subject wife right to
third OF the income until her DEATH after which they
the property free from all such rights or obligations The de-
PENDANTS had need of using the land for the purposes of
mortgage security and certainly did to secure loan on
the property for the purchase price except as to the
debts they pay money except the monthly allowance
which they could pay rents of the property itself If
the value of the land little when subject to an inchoate
right of dover defendants contend looking at the
value from the standpoint of conservative men, what
was the value of the consideration consisting did of oral
promise OF understanding to assume $4,000 of debts and
unsecured though written promise pay $75 month for
plaintiffs life In this transaction the defendants had every
thing to gain and nothing lose After paying the eo0
interest which % would be only $3.50 year they could
much than pay the monthly of SIS income
from the property itself and might be able purchase at
time for comparatively small consideration the wfes nchoae
right of DOVER and upon the plaintiffs they would be
leased from the payment of 5 month and his we death
from her dover right Without going detailed calculation
to the value of the dover right the annuity
discussion OF all the suggestions made the method of deter
mining the value of the property is obvious that well located
income producing city real property worth $4,000 when free
of all membranes, when subject only
third interest from the granor death wife,
worth than $4,000 plus promise SIS
month for the granor life though the promisors
worth in this case 100000 the time That spec
uators money lenders would for purposes throw off
in fee the depreciation due to the nchoate 33 90 life inter
that annuity of SIS month payable by responsible
IF
nearly $4,000, does not alter the result "a
The plaintiff did have independent advice sug
geted him that he take such advice No suggestion made
that better terms might be obtained The deed contained
covenant of warranty against the dover right although
there outstanding mortgage the debt secured by
which of the $4,000 The deed contained provision
for the assumption of the mortgage debt by grantees
it made conditional upon the payment of the $75 month
There written promise whatever the payment of the
debts and security given for the payment of the annuity
The debts fact all paid for several months The
defendant Mr. Magoon acting for both parties He sug
gesed the terms of the and the method Of carrying
and the plaintiff apparently submitted everything he pro-
posed without question Mr. Magoon testified that he did
suppose that S. 900 less would have been
ton to the plaintiff but that all he wanted
monthly Mrs Magoon testified that she thought that the plain
tiff would have taken $50 month that only had been offered
We need go into the question whether the plaintiff
he claims thought he signing deed in for his
children subject the payment of SIS him
of the There certainly much evidence that
difficult to reconcile with that theory well support
of it We may that the defendants thought they
being magnanimous toward the plaintiff the
of thinking that the arrangement better for him.
considering all his troubles than the old But Of the
then existing relationship of principal and reference
to this property the relationship of attorney and Client the
plaintiffs weaknesses and his in the defendants the defend
ants interest in the transaction and the nadequacy of the
sderation equity well established principles undo the
transaction The presumption from such relationships against
the defendants for them show adequacy of consdera
ton and that the parties dealing with each other
length that they advised and acted with reference
plaintiffs interests the latter had been dealing with third
party The plaintiff while he have understood that that