Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ako v. Russell

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided August 12, 1933No. 2097Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION OF

CIRCUIT JUDGE DAVIS.

I respectfully dissent. The deed (Exhibit “A”) presented for interpretation clearly expresses an intent to create and vest in the grantee a fee simple title in the land described therein. The usual and proper words in conveyancing for the creation and vesting of a fee simple title appear in both the granting and habendum clauses of this deed. The grant is to “Enoka Ako and his heirs and assigns forever.” The habendum is “To Have and to Hold * * * unto Enoka Ako, his heirs and assigns forever.” Thus the paramount or ruling intent clearly and legally…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. In Re the Accounting of EvansNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
  2. Burnes v. BurnesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
  3. Dennis v. WilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  4. Watson v. Wolff-Goldman Realty Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
  5. St. James v. Bagley.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API