Kamalu v. Lovell
Hawaii Supreme Court
Exceptions. After lapse of time, and under circumstances of assent and posssession^ the testimony of a grantor will not be held sufficient in law to set aside his deed. The equitable doctrine of laches may reasonably be applied to an ejectment suit depending on the validity of a deed. The Court need not submit the case to the jury, if there is no evidence upon which the jury can find a verdict for the party who has the burden of proof.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion or the Court by
McCully, J.
Upon a previous trial of this cause verdict was rendered for *63the plaintiff. Exceptions to this finding were sustained by the Court — see Kamalu vs. Lovell, 4 Hawn. 601 — on the ground that there was no evidence tending to attack the deed by which the defendant held, executed in 1859 and on record since 1863. and coming from the custody of the defendant’s privies, except the denial of the alleged grantors, Nuuanu and his wife, joining to release dowTer.
Upon the ensuing trial the presiding justice ordered a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Evans v. BaconMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. Hamakua Mill Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1903
- Ross v. Preferred Accident InsuranceHawaii Supreme Court · 1925