The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-12-09
PECULIAR
LAND CASL
Two Persons OF Same
Mama Cause Much
Litigation.

Justice Wilder is author of a unani-
NOUS opinion of the Supreme Court
which overrules a former decision, that
of KaIaeokekof VS.. KaheIe in eth Ha-
uaiian. This is in the ejectment case
Of Mary K. Tibbetts VS.. S. NJ. Damon
ct al trustees under the Will of B. P.
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
who by deed of May Is, 1879, conveyed it
10 a native woman named Lahela ka-
poll. There were two persons of the
name of Lahela Kapoli. From one Of
them plaintiff received deed of the
premises, and from the other the de-
PENDANTS received a deed of the prem
ases sued for.
The issue in the suit below is wheth-
ar 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
quit Court an action of ejectment by
Mary K Tibbetts against one S. Pail,
for q piece of land other than that
sued for in the present action but con-
veyed by the said deed of G.. D. kul-
ala to LaheIa Kapoli, was tried and a
verdict rendered for defendant which
was affirmed in the Supreme Court.
That action was begun on June %, 1899,
while the present action against the
Bishop estate was begun on April IL,
1899.
Defendants claim that the question
of identity of the grantee in kulala
deed, or which was the rightfuliy en-
titled Lahela Kapoli, was settled in the
case of Tibbetts VS.. Pail. barring plain
tiff from suing other defendants for
another piece of land covered by the
same deed from Kuiaia- A similar plea
was sustained in the case of KalaeO-
kekoi VS.. Kahele by the Supreme Court,
nut the cout now holds that the case
was through inadvertence enormously
decided and must be overrulad,' not re-
garding that case as establishing q
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, re-
5erIing to Black on Judgments:
rPrfvfty is a mutual or successive re-
lationship to the same rights of prop
erty Thus. in order for one to be
bound by judgment as a privy to
of he rti he have
eeeded to some right, title or inter-
est of that party in the subject matter
Of the litigation
IL tie case oVerruled, the court says,
HKstr anu, the defendant in the first
suit was a grantee of Kahele, the de-
tendant in the second suit, and thus
Kahele was not in privity with Kahanu
SO as TO 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:
I'm 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. K. 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.