The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1905-12-12
PECULIAR
LAND CASE
From Saturdays Advertlser)

Prom Saturdays advertiserD
Justice wilder Il author OF unanf-
nous opinion OF the Supreme Court
which overrules former decision. that
OF Kalaeokekoi VS.. Kahele in 9Th Ha-
waiian. This Is In the ejectment case
Of Mary X. Tibbetts vs.. S. NJ Damon
ct al, trustees under the Will of Il. T..
Bishop. 1t is upon a question reserved
by the First Circuit Court. the state
ment OF facts being agreed to by the
parties.
Both claimed title to the property
sued for through one G. ID. kuiaia,
who by deed OF May IS, 1879. conveyed it
to a native woman named Lahela Ka-
poll. There were two persons of the
name of Lahela Kapoli. From one of
them plaintiff received a deed of the
premises, and from the other the de-
PENDANTS received a deed of the prem
ises sued for.
The issue in the suit below is wheth-
er the plaintiffs or the defendants
grantor is the Lahela Kapoli who was
the grantee in the deed from Kuiaia. At
the August, 1899, term of the First Cir
cult Court an action of ejectment by
Mary X. Tibbetts against one S. Pail,
for a piece of land other than that
sued for in the present action but con-
veyed by the said deed of G. D. Kui-
ala to Lahela Kapoli, was tried and
verdict rendered for defendant which
was affirmed in the Supreme Court.
That action was begun on June 90, 1899,
while the present action against the
/ Bishop estate was begun on April IL,
1899
1 Defendants claim that the question
of identity of the grantee in Kuiaia's
deed, or which was the rightfully en-
titled Lahela Kapoli, was settled in the
case of Tibbetts VS.. Pail, barring plain
tiff from suing other defendants fort
another piece of land covered by thd
same deed from Kuiaia. A similar plea
was sustained in the case of Kalaeo-
kekoi VS.. Kahele by the Supreme Court,
but the cout now holds that the case
was through inadvertence enormously
decided and must be overruled," not re-
garding that case as establishing a
rule of property so as to place it be-
yond power of overruling.
Quoting the general rule that judg-
ments bind parties and their privies in
blood. in law and in estate" the court
declares the law of privity thus, ne
ferrin1 to Black on Judgments:
"Privity is a mutual or successive reA
lationship to the same rights Of prop
erty. Thus, in order for one to be
bound by judgment as a privy to
cne of the parties he must have sue
ceeded to some right. title or inter-
est OF that party in the subject matter
of the litigation"
II tie case overruled, the court says,
"Karanu, the defendant in the first
suit, was grantee of Kahele, the de-
fendant in the second suit, and thus
Kahele was not in privity with KahanG'
so as 10 be bound by a Judgment
against Kahanu previously rendered.
So far as estoppel by former judgment
Is concerned, a grantee is in privity
with his grantor, but the converse is
not true that a grantor is in privity
with his grantee"
Hence the court decides as follows:
'In the case at bar the defendants
; are not in privity with the defendant
: s. Pail in the first case, and conse-
quently there is no identity of parties
: and no estoppel by former judgment.
''The Circuit Court of the First Cir
cult is advised that the judgment in
the case of NJ. K. Tibbetts VS.. S. Pail
does not estop the said NJ. X. Tibbetts,
the plaintiff herein, from maintaining
this action
w. C. Achi for plaintiff; S. H. Der
by, with Kinney, McClanahan & Coop
er on the brief.