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

trust was filed in the same Circuit
| Court by the said A. F. Judd, as next
! friend of George and Francis, minors,
| against c. A Brown, John A. Magoon
and Irene: which will, after narrating
the history of the proceedings relat-
ing to the estate of the said John Ii,
deceased, alleged that the said will
directed that if the said Irene should
die, having borne children, the said
property should descend to her chill
dren, but that she should be the first
heir, meaning and intending thereby
that during her life she should have
the use and benefit of the said prop
erty, and that her children, by virtue
Of said will, are ''the absolute owners
In fee" of the same, subject only to
their said mothers life estate; and
further alleged the divorce of the said
Irene from the said defendant C. A.
Brown, and the execution of a deed OF
conveyance by them of the said prop
erty" in trust for the organization OF
a corporation to hold the same and
to deliver one-third of the shares to
1.-THE said Irene, one-third to the said
Brown, and third to the plaintiffs,
which corporation was duly organized
under the name or The John Ii Estate
Limited, and delivery of shares made
accordingly, except that one share Of
those to be issued 20 said c. A. Brown
was caused by him to be issued in the
name of ]. A. Magoon, one of the de-
PENDANTS hereto; and contended that
the defendants held such shares sub
ject to a trust that upon Irene's death
the same shall be assigned to the
plaintiffs. r
The bill thereupon contended that
no Legal adjudication, had been made
of said questions of law, referring to
the reserved questions upon which
the Supreme Court had ruled as set
forth above, for the following reasons,
to wit: ..... ...z..-. s,
/. No decree was made in any of
such proceedings. -.
2. In all such proceedings, the chill
dren and Irene were represented by
the same counsel, although their inter-
ests were conflicting.
g. No court which was organized
as required by the Constitution of the
Republic of Hawaii had obtained ap-5
|peilate Jurisdiction of any of the said
reserved questions of law.
4. The jurisdiction of the said Su-,
preme Court concerning the construc-
ton of the said will, il it ever exist
ed, ended upon its determination that
no trust was in existence concerning
the said property.
5. ALI matters of law arising and
pending in the first case before Judge
Cooper were required by law to be
decided by him and by no other court
or judge, and the same, nothing hav-
ing been decided by him, were not
lawfully presented or decided by any
other court or Judge.
8. There was no statutory or other
authority to reserve questions of law
in the first case for the opinion of the
Supreme Court and such reserved
questions of law did not lawfully come
before such court, and so it had no
Jurisdiction thereof. 5.
Judge Writings Authority.
z. Judge Whiting of the Supreme
Court had no constitutional authority
to reorganize the Supreme Court, two
of the justices thereof being disquali-
fed, by installing two members of the
bar Of the Supreme Court to sit in
their places for the decision of such
questions.
&. After argument upon such re-
served questions before such court,
upon the withdrawal of one of such
substituted justices, before an opinion
was reached by such court, new
court to hear argument and decide
such questions could not be lawfully
organized ."--
The bill prayed, among other things.
for an order restraining the defend.
ants from disposing of the shares held
by them as aforesaid, and that they
be decreed to assign the shares held
by them in trustee in trust during
the life of said Irene, to pay the in 4
come thereof to those entitled thereto
and at her death to assign all of the
said shares to the plaintiffs; and for
general relief.
The bill was demurred to on gener- |
al and special grounds, one of the lat
ter being to the effect that 1T does
not appear that any of the property |
or estate of the plaintiffs was con-
Veyed to said corporation either by
them 0rene and c. A. Brown or by |
any person purporting to act in their
behalf"
The court sustained the demurrers !
on the ground that the deed of con-
veyance referred to, which was made
a part of the bill, did not convey or
purport to convey the estate of the
plaintiffs in the said property"-the
estate of John Ii, deceased-supposing
they had an estate therein.
The plaintiffs thereupOn amended
their bill by adding thereto averments
Of intention on the part Of the grant
Ors of the said deed or conveyance to
convey to trustees for the organiZa-
ton of a corporation the fee simple of
the lands devised by the will to the
plaintiffs, and that the ownership in
Zee simple in such lands was claimed
and exercised by the said corporation
BY virtue thereof; that the defendants
claimed that the said Dropepdinoc ond