Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1912-10-08
DOLE'S DECISION

CONTINUED from Paos II
ject to the life interest therein OF
the said Irene ii Holloway, or the
said John Ii Estate Limited, as the
assignee of her life interest"
For convenience, wherever used in
this decision, the word Estate shall
mean John Ii Estate Limited; the
word Irene, Irene Ii Brown or Irene
Ii Holloway, as the case may be;
the word George, George Ii Brown;
the word Francis, Francis Hyde II
Brown, and the word Children, the
surviving children of C. A. Brown
and Irene Ii Brown, being the said
George and Francis.
Story of Case.
1t appears that on April Z, 1894.
after the marriage of the said Irene
with the said c. A. Brown, and the
birth of her three children, two OF
whom are now surviving in the per,
sons OF George and Francis, A. F.
Judd one of the executors of the
last will of John Ii, deceased, the
father of the said Irene, and one of
her guardians, after being discharged
as such guardian, brought a bill in
equity before circuit judge of the
First Circuit, for himself and as
next friend of the said Irene and her
said surviving children, against the
said c. A. Brown; and that there.
after, on August 10 of the same !ear,
an amended bill was substituted there
for, with the same parties as plaintiffs
and defendants, except that Sanford Is.
Dele, administrator with the will am
nexed and guardian, was joined there
in as an additional party plaintiff.
er things, an omission in the copy of
the will furnished by the court to the
said A. F. Judd, Whereby the said ex-
ecutors and guardians not being fully
advised of the true nature and intent
of the said will, procured their dis
charge as guardians of the, said Irene
upon her marriage; but that, upon be-
coming acquainted with, the complete
will, believed that they were thereby
constituted not only executors of the
viii and guardians of the said Irene,
control of her estate during her life;
and that under and by said will pro-
vision was made for the children OF
said Irene and also for the support of
said Irene, and it was important to OBJ
tain construction of such provisions
and the relative rights under said will
OF such minor children and the said
Irene and the said C. A. Brown IN and
to the said estate, and to the inAo:ne
thereof, and the duties of the said
trustees to the several beneficiaries
aforesaid under said will, ard prayed
among other things, that the terms
and provisions of said will and the. de-.
ties and obligations imposed upon the
said A. F. Judd and s. B. Dole as afore
said be defined and determined.
Comes Before Perry. :,
After proceedings before Judge
Cooper, a circuit Judge of such cir
cult, who resigned his ONCE before
reaching decision, the matter came
up before Judge Perry Of the same
circuit, who, on the 18th day of April,
1906, reserved certain questions of law
&c the Supreme Court, as follows: 4
1. Was trust created in the prop
erty devised to Irene Ii by the will OF
her father, John Ii?
2. If such a trust was created. is
the trust still is force, Irene having
attained majority, and had
issue of said marriage, which issue
still survive?
3. II such a trust still exists, is
the interest of Irene Ii Brown under
the same absolute or for life only? 4
4. If such a trust still exists, is
H. such trust that the court will upon
the proper motion order an immediate
of the property to Irene
Ii Brown?
= g. Has Irene Ii Brown a fee simple 4
title in said property, or is her estate
enc for life only?
6. Was an estate in perpetuity
created by sail will, and if so was it's
effect to vest the estate absolutely in
Irene Ii Brown?
Z. If there are any remainders in
said property, are they vested or con-
tiDgent and in what person?
s. What legal and equitable estates
have the several parties plaintiff and
under the will of John Ii \
and the circumstances shown by the
pleadings and evidence?
The Supreme Court, on the 4th day
D. May 1897. ruled that the first ques-
ion should be answered in the affirm
alive; that as to the second question, |
he trust became extinct upon the mar
rage and majority of the devisee
irene, and that as to the fifth question |
me devisee Irene had an estate in fee
simple in the property devised to her |
Dy her fathers will. 1t was consider |
ed by the court that it was unneces-
sary to decide the other questions, in |
view of the rulings already made. No |
'Grther proceedings appear to have |
been taken. The case was not re-
handed to the Circuit Court and no
decree was entered in either court |
This case will be hereafter referred to |
Is the first case. ]
Bill in Equity Filed.