Rose v. Smith
Hawaii Supreme Court
Exceptions to Findings of Austin, J. Plaintiff in ejectment need not show possession within twenty years if he shows title and no adverse possession is proved. The Clerk having failed to enter judgment on a verdict, the Court will order it entered when the defect is noticed, nunc pro tuno.
Read the full summary
Exceptions to Findings of Austin, J. Plaintiff in ejectment need not show possession within twenty years if he shows title and no adverse possession is proved. The Clerk having failed to enter judgment on a verdict, the Court will order it entered when the defect is noticed, nunc pro tuno. It having been held, in Keahi vs. Bishop, 3 Hawn., 546, that an adjudication of pedigree is binding in every subsequent action where the same question is raised; held that defendant here is estopped by the judgment in a former suit, notwithstanding the failure of the Clerk to enter judgment therein.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court, by
Judd, C. J.
The plaintiff brings her action of ejectment to recover possession of, firstly, a parcel of land situated on Fort street (Kaliu), Honolulu, being land conveyed by Kamehameha IV. to one Keoni Liaikulani, by deed dated August 12, 18G2, and by Keoni Liaiku-lani conveyed to plaintiff by deed dated the 9th of October, 1872, The Court below, Mr. Justice Austin, jury being waived, held that plaintiff could not take judgment for this parcel, as no original title in Kamehameha IV. was shown. To this no exception Was taken by plaintiff and we are not to consider it…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mossman v. Hawaiian GovernmentHawaii Supreme Court · 1896
- Territory of Hawaii ex rel. Holloway v. CottonHawaii Supreme Court · 1906
- Kaleialii ex rel. McKeague v. GrinbaumHawaii Supreme Court · 1893
- Kukea v. KeahiHawaii Supreme Court · 1896