The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-04-28
LEASE LAW
LAID DOWN
Supreme Court Reverses
Itself in Silveira
VS.. AhIo.

BY a practically unanimous opinion
the Supreme Court reverses its former
decision in the case of NJ. B. Silveira
VS.. l.. Ahlo, sets aside the verdict for
plaintiff and orders new trial A. e.
NJ Robertson appeared for plaintiff;
Castle & Wilmington for defendant.
Chief Justice Frear writes the opinion,
which Circuit Judge Lindsay signs
with him. Justice Hartwell, though
having a somewhat different under
standing of the case from that of his
associates, signs concurring opinion
rather than risk making Ahlo liable
to two parties for rent of the same
land.
The plaintiff executed two leases
to the defendant, the court says,
Zone to expire May 1, 1908, the other
January l, 1905, each being for fifteen
years and at monthly rental. Before
the termination of these leases he ex-
ecuted a third lease of the same and
other lands to one Mendonca, to begin
June l, 1000, and to be rent free for
the first four months and at a speci-
fed rental per month for the further
term of fifty wears. He afterward
brought this action for the rent that
accrued under the first two leases from
January /, 1900, to February IS, 1902,
and obtained q verdict for the amount
claimed. The defendant took excep-
tions, which were overruled, but a re-
hearing was granted and has been had
upon the question whether the plain
tiff was not precluded from recovering
such rent after the commencement of
the lease to Mendonca, on the theory
that the right to rent to accrue under
the first two leases passed to Mendon
ca by operation of law upon the lease
of the reversion to him.
Mendonca executed a document, on
the date of his acknowledgment of the
lease to him, in which he certified that
he was aware of the fact that three
of the pieces of land covered by his
lease were then partly under the two
leases made to Ahlo and partly under
a lease made to another person; also
that his lease twas granted subject
to the aforementioned three leases
Besides that certificate, reliance of
plaintiff was on the fact that one Bolte
was the agent of both Silveira and
Mendonca. But the court remarks,
Bolte could not as agent of one make
a contract with himself as agent of the
other so as to bind either in the alb
sence of consent or ratification by
them, nor did he attempt to do that
so far as appears.
1t is mentioned that neither Men
donca nor Bolte is a party to the ac-
tion, and in its conclusion the opinion
says: Gin the absence of any agree
ment or conduct on the part of the
overlessee that would prevent him
from recovering the rent from the de-
PENDANT, it must be held that the |
lessor is not entitled to the rent. The |
defendant should not be required to
pay the plaintiff when he may be |
called upon to pay Mendonca. 1t may
be that evidence can be produced on |
a new trial which win show that the |
plaintiff is entitled to the rent
The decision here reversed was rem |
dered by Justice Hartwell, sitting |
with Chief Justice Frear and Justice
Hatch, on December 10, 1904. Fire had
destroyed buildings on portion of
the premises in question before the
lease to Mendonca was made.