The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-07-02
LEASE IS
SET ASIDE
Willie Hall Gets
His Property
Back.

The Supreme Court yesterday hand
ed down an opinion sustaining the low
er court in the cancellation of a lcasH
obtained by c. Wynam from Willie A.
Hail. a Hawaiian boy, by what was al
legged to be undue influence. The de-
cision of Judge Gear to that effect IS
upheld and the lease to valuable prop
erty held by the Chinese is ordered can
celled. Hall. in his testimony at the
! trial of the case, admitted that he was
| a spendthrift and ne is now in the care
of q guardian. The property involved
insthe suit is in the business portion of
| Honolulu and had been leased by
| Halls father for a term of Is years at
| a rental of $1,000 annually. Afterwards
| Wynam obtained a renewal at $1,000 a
year, though the land had become very
valuable. The Supreme Court finds
! that the reasonable net rental value OF
| the land is $4,000. and that the plaintiff
| is a young Hawaiian with little busi-
| ness training while the defendant is a
Chinaman AZ years old and capable
business man."
The syllabus of the unanimous opin-
| ION, which is written by Justice Cal
| braith follows:
| Where two persons stand In Such a
relation that confidence IS necessarily
reposed by one, and the influence whlch
| naturally grows out of that confidence
| is possessed by the other. and this con-
| fidence IS abused, or the influence is
| exerted to obtain an advantageous
agreement at the expense OF the con-
fding party, the one so misuslng ms
position will not be permitted to retain
the benefit, although the agreement or
contract could not have been impeach-
ed If no such confidential relation had
existed.
"a contract entered into between an
inexperienced young man, with little
| k1.I nd SSny
of the value of money or property, and
an experienced and capable business
man without Independent advice ana
| for an inadequate consideration, the
weaker confiding in and trusting the
stronger to protect his interest, Will be
Iannulled and cancelled by a court of
equity at the suit of the defendant
party"
The Supreme Court further says:
II is commended on behalf of the de-
PENDANT that a part of the land was
/ low and marShy and had been con-
demned as insanitary and ordered TO De
| filed in by the Board of Health; that
in order to comply with the order OF
| the health authorities and make all OF
the property inhabitable it was neces-
| sary to expend large sums or money
in filling in and raising the grade of
the premises; that for the brief unex-
| pired term of the lease held by the de-
| PENDANT he could not afford to make
this great outlay; that he was compell-
ed to either surrender the lease for the
remainder of the term or secure an ex-
| tension for additional term; tnat
this motive permitted him to secure an
extension of the term at the earliest
| possible time it was possible for him TO
do SO.
These considerations offer plausible
and reasonably justifiable motive Tor
| wishing and securing an extension OF
| the lease at the time but would not
warrant the defendant in taking an un-
fair advantage of the plaintiff or in
driving an unconscionable bargain with
him.
| 1t is clear from the evidence that the
rent reserved is not a fair rental value
of the present estimated value of the
plaintiffs interest therein. 1t IS less
than per cent net OF the valuation
placed thereon for taxes. What the
value of the land will be at the comb
mencement of the term. 1906. is some
what uncertain, but all of the witness
es who testified agree that it would
then be greater than it is at present
| 1t has been urged and it seems possible
| that the taxes on the land which the
plaintiff is required to pay will be-
| fore the expiration of the term of 2;
years be greater than the rent reserv-
ed. Inadequacy of consideration alone
will not authorize court OF equity u
interfere with the agreement of the
parties, but taken with other circum-
stances it is a potent factor. The rela
j ! lion existing between the parties anC
the trust and confidence repoSed in tn
4 defendant by the plaintiff seem tt
bring this case within the well estab
lished jurisdiction of court of equity
In conclusion, the court says: "Th
I conclusion is inevitable that the de
& PENDANT did abuse the confidence place.
in him by the plaintiff and took aGvan
q tage of the influence he eXerted owe
the plaintiff to obtain a bargain great
& iy to his interest and much against tn
& interest of the plaintiff, and that thi
y contract so obtained ought in equit
4 and good conscience to. be cancelled ant
8 annulled."