The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-08-06
THE COURT OF APPEALS
ANNLJLS A HAWAIIAN LAW
In Effect Holds That Act q of the Legislature
of 1905 Does Not Amend the
Recording Act.

mathematical markings must appear
! upon plan authorized TO be filed IN
/ der section ], and expressly recognizes
! that conxeyances may be made IN cases
where property is subdivided into lots
with reference to a plan or map fled
/ with the registrar. 1t is, of course; a
common practice to transfer property
by Incorporating in the body of the
| instrument a mere general description
of the lot by number and block, fol
| lowed by reference to the particular
marking and showing upon a plat or
map as on file in the Office of the reg
i istrar of conyeyances OF the county or
/ locality in which the property IS sit
uafed This method presupposes that
there is on file. as part of the archives,
plat of the land referred to, made
as the statute may point out, and
which. by such reference, becomes part
of the description in the conveyance.
But Act No. %, while it may affect
registration of judgments and deeds
which merely refer for description TO
plats or plans on file. in that it makes
it unlawful to receive plats not con-
forming to the specific provisions of
sections /, and of the statute, can
not be extended to prevent the record
of deeds or judgments IN eondemna-
ton which are not offered for fling
and record as plans of land, and do
not attempt to transfer by lot num-
Der and reference to plats on file with
the registrar, but do convey by indie
pendent descriptions, parts of which de-
scriptions are maps or plats attached
lal -, ha
struments of conveyance.
Section 3 of the act prescribes the
size of the cloth upon which plan is
shown. and fixes the scale upon which
it must be drawn 1t has nothing to
do with conveyances, and, so far as it
aids US at all in gathering the mean
ing of the whole act. it confirms the
view that only such plans as have been
enumerated in the preceding sections
are included.
Section 4, in forbidding the registrar
to accept for record and to record any
plan of land after Act No. % became
effective, must be construed with rela-
ton to the context, which has to do
exclusively with plans and surveys of
property fled as such, and does not
control the record of deeds of prop
where, as before stated, maps are at
tached and made integral parts of spe-
eial description, but which are not
brought into the body of the instru-
ment hv reference to plans or maps
on file in the Office of the registrar.
Again, section 1858 of the territorial
law of conveyanees (Rev. Laws Hawaii
l905) makes it the duty of the regis
frar to make an entire literal copy of
all instruments required to be recorded
in his Office. In our opinion, whatever
may be the indispensable requisites to
registration of conveyances, where ref
erence is made to plats on file, special
descriptions, made parts of instru-
ments and complete without such ref
erenees, must be recorded as parts of
the instruments, just as the registrar
was obliged to record them prior to the
enactment of Act No. %. Jefferies V.
East Omaha Land Co, 134 Z. S. IFS,
10 Sup. CT. SIS, SO L. Ed. 872; Morgan
ct al y. Moore. 80 Mass. 319; Hutch
craft x Lutwig ct al, .13 Wash. 240,
43 Pac %; Davis V. Rainsford, IL
Mass 207; Warville on Abstracts, p.
I6l: Lunt Y. Holland. IA Mass 49,
We perceive no repugnaney between
the general laws of the territory, rela-
ting TO conveyances, and Act No. %,
affecting the questions involved in this
case; and, giving all possible weight
to the argument of the defendant in
error, it carries us no farther than to
a point where we may admit that the
case presents difficulty in finding out
Just what the Legislature meant by
Act No. %, when considered with other
statutes bearing upon titles and trans
fer of property. An aid in the solution
of such a difficulty, however, lies, not
only in the analysis of the statutes
lust hereinbefore made, but by resort
to the title to Act No. %, which reads:
Gan act providing for the fling of
plans and surveys of lands in the Of
fee of the registrar of conveyances.
In United States V. Fisher, Cranch,
$50. , l. Ed. 304, Chief Justice Mar
shall said:
- Neither party contends that the
title to an act can control plain words
in the body of the statute; and neither
denies that, taken with other parts, it
may assist in removing antiquities.
Where the intent is plain, nothing is
left to construction. Where the mind
labors to discover the design of the
Legislature, it seizes everything from
which AID can be derived; ana IN Sucn
case the title claims degree of notice,
and viii have its due share of con-
sIderation.
1t is significant that nowhere in the |
title is there a word which discloses |
that the purpose of Act No. % was to |
amend or repeal the statutes requiring |
record of condemnation judgments, or |
record of conveyances of property, |
where maps are themselves attached TO |
the deed as included parts of the de-
scriptions of the realty. We cannot |!
extend the statute by construction or
imply repeal.
Defendant in error is a public Off /
Ger; and, as his duty to record is min
isterial, he is obliged to perform it.
The procedure by application for writ
of mandamus may be treated as one /
made necessary in order to carry out |