John Ii Estate v. Brown

• Citation: 201 F. 224
• Decision Date: 07 October 1912
• Docket Number: 1,996.
• Parties: JOHN II ESTATE, Limited, et al. v. BROWN et al.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

201 F. 224

JOHN II ESTATE, Limited, et al. v. BROWN et al.

No. 1,996.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 7, 1912

On July 2, 1897, Irene and Charles A. Brown conveyed their interest in the lands to Henry Holmes, as trustee, who, in the same month, conveyed to a corporation, the John Ii Estate Limited, the plaintiff in error here. The stock of this corporation was issued, one-third to Irene, one-third to Charles A. Brown, and one-third to Henry Holmes, trustee for George Ii Brown and Francis Hyde Ii Brown, the surviving Brown children, in equal shares. The shares held by Henry Holmes as trustee for George Ii Brown have been turned over to him since he attained his majority; and he has, since his majority, received and accepted the monthly dividends paid upon his shares.

To this bill Irene Holloway answered, admitting the material allegations of the bill, except the allegation that the said John Ii meant and intended by his said last will that the defendant Irene should have the use and benefit of said property during her lifetime only, and she alleged that she was given in and by said will the said property in fee simple. The defendant Magoon demurred to the bill generally. The defendant Brown demurred on general and special grounds-- among others, on the ground that there was another suit pending, in which all necessary proceedings had been taken save alone the formal entry of a decree, and that it did not appear that any of the property or estate of the plaintiffs was conveyed to said corporation, either by Irene or C. A. Brown, or by any persons purporting to act in their behalf. The demurrers were sustained, on the ground that the deed of conveyance referred to, which was made a part of the bill, did not convey, or purport to convey, the estate of the plaintiffs in the property.

This cause comes before this court upon a writ of error to the United States District Court for the Territory of Hawaii to review the action of the court in determining the claims of contesting claimants to a fund of $10,000 paid into the registry of the court by the United States for a tract of land, containing 50 acres, taken under condemnation proceedings.

On February 10, 1906, the United States filed its petition in condemnation proceedings in the United States District Court for the Territory of Hawaii for a tract of land having an area of 50 acres on Pearl Harbor, in the Island of Oahu, in the territory and district of Hawaii. The land described in the petition is a portion of the ahupaa (or tract) of Waipio, which was the property of one John Ii at the time of his death in 1870. The defendants and respondents named in the petition in condemnation were the John Ii Estate, Limited, a Hawaiian corporation, Carl S. Holloway, Irene Ii Holloway, Francis Hyde Ii Brown, George Ii Brown, Irene Ii Holloway, as guardian of the persons and estate of Francis Hyde Ii Brown and George Ii Brown, and Charles A. Brown, John A. Magoon, Alfred W. Carter, Sidney M. Ballou, and Irene Ii Holloway, directors of the John Ii Estate, Limited.

Answers were filed by Francis Hyde Ii Brown, a minor, and George Ii Brown, a minor, by A. G. M. Robertson, their guardian ad litem, and by the John Ii Estate, Limited, by Charles A. Brown and J. Alfred Magoon, directors. The only material issue raised in the answers was contained in the answer of the two minors, by their guardian ad litem, in which it was alleged that their claims in and to said parcel of land were adverse to and in conflict with the claims of the other defendants, and that it would be necessary for the court, in the event of the prayer of the petition being granted, to decide said respective claims, and to apportion the money that might be adjudged to be paid by said petitioner for said land. The petition was heard by the court, and on August 24, 1909, judgment was entered, wherein it was adjudged that the land described in the petition should be condemned for the uses and purposes of the United States as in said petition alleged. The value of the tract of land condemned was fixed and determined to be the sum of $10,000, and this sum it was adjudged should be paid as compensation for said land to the defendants and respondents, or such of them as might thereafter be adjudged entitled thereto. The contesting claimants to this award were the John Ii Estate, Limited, claiming the whole of the award, and Francis Hyde Ii Brown, a minor, and George Ii Brown, each claiming an interest in said award.

The John Ii Estate, Limited, claimed the whole of the award upon the ground that the land for which the $10,000 was paid belonged to the John Ii Estate, Limited, in fee simple; that the land was by John Ii devised in fee to Irene Ii by will; that said will was admitted to probate in the Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands on the 10th day of June, 1870, and confirmed to her by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands rendered May 4, 1897 (11 Hawaii, 47), and by said Irene Ii and her husband, Charles A. Brown, conveyed to Henry Holmes, as trustee, by deed dated July 2, 1897, and by Holmes conveyed to said John Ii Estate, Limited, by deed of July 9, 1897, and confirmed to said estate by decision of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii rendered November 21, 1903 (15 Hawaii, 308); that the right of the John Ii Estate, Limited, to the money was res judicata; that all the other defendants were estopped to claim the same; that no person had any interest, right, or claim in said money.

In the claim of Francis Hyde Ii Brown it was alleged that the land was formerly owned in fee by John Ii, since deceased; that it was devised by will to his daughter Irene for life, and upon her death to her children, or, in the event of her not having borne children, then to her mother, Maraea Ii, if then living, and, if not, then to the testator's brother J. Komoikehuehu; that thereafter Irene Ii became the wife of C. A. Brown, and at the time of filing the claim was then the wife of C. A. Holloway; that as a result of Irene Ii's marriage with C. A. Brown there were three children, namely, the claimant, Francis Hyde Ii Brown, George Ii Brown, one of the respondents, and Bernice Ii Brown, who died in infancy; that by reason of these facts claimant became the owner of an undivided interest in said land in fee simple, and was entitled to a one-third share or interest in said fund, subject to the life interest therein of Irene Holloway, or the John Ii Estate, as the assignee of her life interest. And, further answering the claim of the John Ii Estate, claimant alleged that the opinion of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, rendered on May 4, 1897 (11 Hawaii, 47), was not binding upon claimant and did not affect his title to said land nor his right or claim in or to said fund for the following, among other, reasons: (1) That the cause in which said opinion was rendered was a suit in equity, and the opinion was rendered upon questions reserved in said suit by the circuit judge before whom the suit came on for hearing; but the said circuit judge was without authority of law or jurisdiction to so reserve said questions in said suit. (2) That the said Supreme Court had no jurisdiction or authority to hear, determine, or otherwise pass on the questions so reserved as aforesaid. (3) That the said Supreme Court, at the time of the rendition of said opinion, was composed or constituted of Associate Justice Whiting, of the court, and two members of the bar of the court, who sat as substitute justices in the cause at the request of the said associate justice; but that the request was made without any right or authority of law, the court as so composed and constituted was not a legally constituted court, and its opinion was without legal effect. (4) That the claimant was not a party to said suit. (5) That the purported attempt of A. F. Judd to represent the claimant in said suit as his next friend was illegal, null, and void, in that said Judd was at the same time acting, or purporting to act, as the next friend of claimant's mother, whose interests in said suit were adverse to claimant's interests therein on the question as to the nature of the estate in said land devised to her by said will. (6) That the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, if it ever acquired jurisdiction, in said suit, was, under the pleadings, limited to the determination of the question whether any trust was then in existence concerning the property devised by the will, and that its jurisdiction ended upon its determining that no such trust existed. (7) That no judgment, order, or decree was ever made in any of the aforesaid proceedings in said suit in equity, pursuant to the opinion of the Supreme Court, or otherwise, adjudicating or determining the rights of claimant under said will in any of the property therein devised.

Further answering the claim of the John Ii Estate, Limited, the claimant alleged that the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, rendered on November 21, 1903 (15 Hawaii, 308), did not adjudicate or determine claimant's right or title in any of the property devised by the will of said John, deceased, and did not affect the claimant's right of claim in or to said fund in court.

In the statement of claim of George Ii Brown, impleaded as a minor, it was alleged that he arrived at the age of majority October 18, 1907, and, alleging the prior proceedings substantially as did Francis Hyde Ii Brown, claimed an undivided interest in the land in fee simple, and entitled to a one-third share or interest in the fund, subject to the life interest therein of Irene Ii Holloway.

To fully understand the questions at issue between these claimants as to their alleged right to the fund in court, it will be necessary to state...