The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-12-12
TRUST
IRREVOCABLE


ny n unanimous opinion. written by
Justice Hartwell. tho Supreme Court
afiirns tho decree Of Judge Lindsay
which sustained the demurrer and re-
fused 20 allow an amendment To the
hill In equity OF James Love against
James Love, Jr. Annie X Hart and
the Henry watorhouse Trust Co. IL
was suit to cancel trust deed made
by plaintiff for the benefit of his chill
drcn-thc first two defendants--upon
being relieved from n spcndthrift
guardianship on August 20. 1901. In a
single deed he conveyed certain prop
erty to James Love, Jr. and Annie
X. Hart. also TO Annie l.. Roe. 'iu
consideration OF his regard and af-
lection and OF ST." and other property
to trustee with power to sell and
invest proceeds and to pay to him the
income for his life and, at his death,
to convey the property and It's pro-
ceeds or the Investments thereof TO his
two children already named. George a.
Davis was the original trustee and he
resigning the Waterhouse company was
appointed In his stead. on April 5,
1904, plaintif made a declaration In
writing, whereby he ratified all acts
of his trustees to that time and re-
voked the appointment of trustee
and the trusts created In the deed.
Afterward he brought this suit to OBJ
tain IA decree of revocation as well as
reconveyance OF the trust property to
him. His suit was fought by the bene-
ficiaries and the trustee.
Henry Il. Highton appeared for the
petitioner, A. G. NJ. Robertson for the
beneficiaries and ID. l.. Wilmington for
the trustee.
In concluding the opinion, which oc-
cupies seventeen typewriter pages, the
court says:
THE plaintiff acknowledged his deed
of settlement in the statutory form,
declaring that he made 1t freely and
voluntarily for the uses and purposes
therein set forth. The ordinary view
of layman in executing a deed is that
IL Is not subject to revocation by HIM
self, There is nothing unusual in this
deed; on the contrary. 1t appears to
have been a reasonable and prudent
act on the plaintiffs part. He sug-
gests no reason for his present desire
to revoke the deed. hence we infer
that he desires to make other persons
than those mentioned In the deed the
object of his bounty. We are not pre-
pared to think that any attorney who
practices before this court would adj
wise the plaintiff that II he should exc
cute and deliver this deed of trust he
could afterward revoke 1t at will, for
if the attorney knew no better than
| thic bn m ali IN In
the other hand; IL the plaintiff told his
attorney that he wished to place his
property with trustee to pay him
the income for his life and then to
convey 1t to j. L., Jr., and A. X. H.,
but that he might change his mind
and so wished the deed to reserve his
right to revoke 1t whenever he liked
an attorney who would draw a deed
emitting to follow such instruction
would deserve disbarment and to be
held in damages. Moreover. in such a
case we ought to decree revoca ton of
the deed not because the plaintiff mis-
understood it's effect or understood that
he could revoke 1t, but because he had
been deceived into making It. But the
case does not go to this extent and
shows no ground for declaring the deed
to be reVocable.'
ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
Justice Wilder is author of unani-
nous opinion of the Supreme Court
setting aside a Judgment of the Ho-
nolulu District Court, which refused
to GLOW amendment of complaint after
granting a nonsuit to defendants In the
/ suit OF Lau Bow against Fred M.
Kiey and Jas. b. German on a prom
issory note representing the price of
badanas that defendants bought from
yjaintiff. A. S. Humphreys appeared
for plaintiff and defendants made no
appearance. The law is thus stated:
Plaintiff having been nonsuited In
an action on a promissory note on the
ground that the note was not stamped.
the evidence showing that the note
had been given for goods sold and de-
livered, the District Court abused its
discretion in refusing to allow plain
tiff to amend the complaint by adding
a count for goods sold and delivered"
CASES ARGUED.
After hearing argument the Supreme
Court denied the motion of defendant
to strike out portions OF the complaint
in the suit of W. o. Smith ct al. trus-
tees. VS.. Territory of Hawaii or the
Lahainaluna $4,000 case. Smith &
Lewis for plaintiffs; Deputy Attorney
General Prosser for defendant.
Argument was heard by the Supreme
Court in the matter OF the taxes Of
Gay & Robinson. Makaweli Deputy
Attorney General Fleming appeared
for the assessor: Castle & wilmington
and A. Perry for the taxpayers.
--st-e-