Puuheana v. Lio
Hawaii Supreme Court
Appeal prom Decision op the Chancello», Plaintiff alleges that by fraudulent representations she Was induced to make a deed to different grantees from those she intended, and that the latter have since died ; defendants demur, on the ground that the right of action lay in the parties Who had been defrauded! Held that plaintiff is the proper person to bring the suit, as the representatives of the grantees whom the plaintiff intended could not compel execution of a deed.
Read the full summary
Appeal prom Decision op the Chancello», Plaintiff alleges that by fraudulent representations she Was induced to make a deed to different grantees from those she intended, and that the latter have since died ; defendants demur, on the ground that the right of action lay in the parties Who had been defrauded! Held that plaintiff is the proper person to bring the suit, as the representatives of the grantees whom the plaintiff intended could not compel execution of a deed. An allegation that ‘‘plaintiff has cause to suspect and so charges,” coupled with statements of alleged fraudulent…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
McCully, J.
The bill alleges that Puuheana .intended, to make a conveyance of certain estate to one Kapule and Kamakaluhi, but by fraud and misrepresentation and ignorance made the conveyance to Lio, the defendant, and Kamakaluhi, and prays that the deed may be cancelled. '
*203The defendants demur on the ground (1) that the plaintiff is not the proper party to complain, as she had determined to alienate her land, and had done so, but that the right of action lay in the parties who had been defrauded in not receiving the conveyance alleged to have been intended. We take it that there is a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Brown v. CornwellHawaii Supreme Court · 1911
- Taba v. JardinHawaii Supreme Court · 1928