Legal Opinion

Pacific Trust Co. v. Nagamori

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided March 16, 1932No. 2036Published

1Dissent

OPINION OP

2Concurring in part, dissenting in partParsons, J.

I concur with the majority in the opinion that the provision in Exhibit “B,” the agreement of November 18, 1922, that “neither party shall assign, transfer, sell or in any way encumber his interest, or any part thereof, in said property without first the consent in writing of the other party be given,” in the context recited, is void under authority of Lucas v. Lucas, 20 Haw. 433, 441, as an attempted restraint on alienation in violation of the rule against perpetuities. I concur also in the conclusion that the judgment be set aside and a new trial granted. I do not, however, concur…

3Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Peterson v. GibbsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Fallass v. PierceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
  3. Wood v. . SeelyNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
  4. Marling v. NommensenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Indiana, Bloomington & Western Railway Co. v. AllenIndiana Supreme Court · 1888

11 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