The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1902-11-14
GETS
THE SUGAR
important Ruling
By Supreme
Court.
From Wednesdays doilyJ

lhA'i'StH gttleIudE IN a uetlHlOu SuS- /
tanning the ruling Of Judge Robinson |
In the case OF Albert *. Nawahi VS.. |
IIakalau Plantation Co. The suit was
for $4,000 damages Tor a crop of sugar
taken from land leased by the defend !
ant from plaintiff, after the lease had
expired, and the sugar company had
been ordered to vacate. The Supreme
Court upholds the doctrine that the
lessee is entitled to crop of sugar
cane. though it is not sown and may
require more than a year to mature.
The decision of the court is as fol-
lows
Sugar cane is a crop subject to the
law of emblements, although ii is not
sown and may require more than a
year to mature.
guardian cannot make a lease of
the wards land to extend beyond the
latters majority so as to bind the ward
as to the excess beyond that time, but
such lease is binding on the lessee
| and may be ratified or disafiirmed by
the ward upon attaining his majority.
If the ward disaffirms the lease on
coming CT age the lessee will be en-
titled to emblements, as the term is
minat!on or continuance at that time.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
| FREAR, c. j.
| This is an action of trespass for $780,
| 0y0 for removing a crop of sugar cane
/ from certain lands belonging to the
plaintiff. The only question is whether
the defendant was entitled to the crop
under the law of emblements. The
| question comes here on an exception
to a ruling of the trial judge sustain
ing the defendants demurrer and dis
missing the plaintiffs action.
The defendant has been in possession
| under a lease made by the guardian
of the plaintiff Chen a minor for ten
years from July /, 1897, but the minor
upon coming of age notified the defend
ant In January, 1902, that the lease
was terminated and requested possess
sion, but the defendant continued in
possession long enough to harvest the
then growing crop.
II The general rule is that when q ten
ancy is of uncertain duration and is
terminated through no act or fault Of
the tenant, he or his representatives,,
H. entitled to the annual crops then
, growing upon the land. Thus there
certainty of the term, as in the case of
an estate fer life or at will; (2) termi-
nation of the tenancy through no act
of the tenant, as by act of God as where
life tenancy is terminated by death,
or by act of the law as where a ten
ancy during coverture is terminated by
, divorce, or by act of a landlord as
where he determines a tenancy at will;
, q
, by which is meant not so much that it
| must be planted or sown annually or
even harvested strictly within a year
as that it is the result of annual care
!, and labor. This law is based on the
policy of encouraging industry by Civ
! ing to tenants the results of their own
= labor in cases where the expenditure
: of such labor is not due to their own
folly. IL tenancy We're to determine
at known time or through the act of
the tenant it would be his own fault
if he planted a crop which could not be
harvested until after the termination
Of the tenancy; but if he could not
/ know when the tenancy would deter
mine he would but for the law of en-
Elements, be discouraged from plant
ing or sowing or cultivating, for he
could not know whether he or another
would reap the results of his labor.
See, in general, Am. & Eng. Enc.
Law, I'd I'D. 800. 3lS; Taylor. Id. IL
Ten, Sec. 534; Wood Id. & Ten, Sec.
SOL.
1t is not disputed in this case that
the tenancy was determined through
no act or fault of the tenant.
As to the annual nature of the crop
although much of the opinion of the
Circuit Judge was devoted to the ques-
tion Of whether sugar cane was crop
of this nature, especially considering
: that 1t Is not sown and may require
more than a year to mature, counsel
, do not in this court seem TO dispute that
II Is, and the principles above set forth
) would seem to require the adoption OF
p this view.
2 The only question remaining, there
fore, Is whether the tenancy was one of
2 uncertain duration. 1t is contended
2 that the guardian could not make a
lease Of the wards land TO extend be-
e yond the latter's minority and that the
' excess beyond that time is void, and
! consequently that the lease must be re-
F. garded ms one for a definite period,
: that h, until the ward should become
% Of age. There Is no doubt OF the corr
? RICHNESS OF the premises IN TINS hlsu-
ment ana Of the general statements
% cited from the authorities I'm support
! of them n We read them In tia sense
Q intended by those authorities, II Il
? true thar guardian cannot lease the
To- wards land Tor q period beyond hls
70 minority that is, 80 as 90 bind the
4 ward, aud MAT the excess beyond that
o time h void the option ~ the ward
a IL. A.. l.a IA.
q tlr l"rrrH after that time unless tn
: ward terminates Il and u may Do rall'
y hrd % iisanrmed ~ tho ward az hi'
y option ~ b. not absolutely void "a
. 60 che rNrrfs. ihgt 10, null for an pur'
. pnfrs aHi incapable ~ ratification, II
In W"l.'f NUIiHhlr fyrn as 90 lhr ward
5000 Hnl Nu|lahIp "a all hy ihe Ir6sep
NH" Nan hHlrH tfrIrul y l.LIiitn
4 HUHUh 81 nuIIHU. Iu "a 4 4. lII. cam