Case: KAHANU vs. WM. THOMPSON
Abbreviation: Kahanu v. Thompson
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1856-04
Docket Number: 
Citation: 1 Haw. 235
Volume: 1
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Parties: KAHANU vs. WM. THOMPSON.
Pages: 235–238

KAHANU vs. WM. THOMPSON.
When a minor purchases land, he must make his election within a reasonable time after reaching his majority whether he will keep the land and pay for it, or disaf-firm the contract and return the land. He cannot keep the estate and refuse to pay the consideration money.
This was an action by a mother against her son, to recover the sum of $270, and interest, upon the allegation that she, her son, a daughter and other relatives purchased a piece of land in common in 1853, she contributing towards the payment thereof the sum of $270; which land was bought in the name of her son the defendant, and had been in the common possession of the purchasers until February last, when the defendant claimed the land as belonging exclusively to him, and drove off the plaintiff.
The defendant denied the plaintiff’s allegation in toto, claiming that he paid the purchase money without any aid from his mother, except a contribution of $25, which sum he had repaid, and that no one but himself had a claim in the land. He further contended that provided his mother had advanced him the money for the purchase of the land, he was a minor at the time, and could not be held responsible for its repayment.
There was much contradictory evidence introduced to prove who paid for the land, &c., and the case occupied ttie court for two days.
Mr. Harris and Mr. Davis for plaintiff.
Mr. Marsh and Mr. Humphreys for defendant.

Chief Justice Lee,
charged the jury, that if they found that the plaintiff had contributed to the purchase of the land, and that the defendant had driven her off, claiming the land to be solely his own, he ought at least to repay the amount of her contribution. Common justice imposed this upon him as a duty, and he could not enjoy the estate and at the same time refuse to pay for it. It is not clear whether the defendant was a minor at the time of the purchase or not, but provided he was, still he must pay, for, after coming of age, he has continued to hold the property and treat it as his own, and denied all claim of the plaintiff to the same, and this amounts to a ratification of the implied promise to repay the amount of his mother’s contribution. When a minor purchases land, he must make his election within a reasonable time after reaching his majority whether he will keep the land, and pay for it, or disaffirm the contract and return the land. He cannot keep the estate and refuse to pay the consideration money. In this case the defendant has made his election, and the jury should find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for whatever sum, if any, she has paid towards the land.
The jury after a long absence rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $25. Three jurors dissented, stating that in their opinion, the plaintiff was entitled to the full amount claimed, $270.
Mr. Hinton for complainants.
Mr. Makalena for defendant.