Kaehu v. Namealoha

• Decision Date: 23 October 1911
• Citation: 20 Haw. 648
• Parties: ANE KAEHU v. MEEAU NAMEALOHA.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

20 Haw. 648

ANE KAEHU

v.MEEAU NAMEALOHA.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Argued October 9, 1911.

Decided October 23, 1911.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREEXCEPTIONS FROM CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND CIRCUIT.

Syllabus by the Court

Where the plaintiff in an action of ejectment sues for and claims the entire interest in and the right to the possession of all the land involved in the action, and the defendant, instead of claiming only a moiety, files an answer denying generally all the allegations contained in the plaintiff's complaint, the answer constitutes ouster, and relieves the plaintiff from the necessity of proving it by any other evidence.

A plaintiff in ejectment may take judgment as co-tenant according to the extent of his title.

T. M. Harrison for plaintiff.

D. H. Case and Enos Vincent for defendant submit the case on a brief.

ROBERTSON, C.J., PERRY AND DE BOLT, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY DE BOLT, J.

This was an action of ejectment and was tried by the court, jury waived, the decision being that the plaintiff and the defendant, together with another, were tenants in common of the land in controversy, and that the plaintiff take nothing.The plaintiff having excepted to the decision generally, without alleging any error in particular, her bill of exceptions was dismissed.Ante, 350.Thereafter the plaintiff sued out a writ of error which was quashed on the ground that final judgment had not been entered.Ante, 516.The case being remanded the circuit court filed a so-called “revised decision,” which, in addition to the finding that the plaintiff and the defendant, together with another, were tenants in common, set forth reasons and findings not contained in the first decision, which, in substance, were that the plaintiff had not made it certain what lands she claimed; that the description given was not sufficient to identify the lands; that there was a failure of proof as to ouster of the plaintiff by the defendant, hence the defendant was entitled to judgment.

The purpose in filing the “revised decision” is not entirely clear, but it may be assumed that the circuit judge, as well as counsel, had some doubt as to the sufficiency of the reasons given in the first decision, in view of the requirements of Act117 of the Laws of 1909.Be that as it may, the “revised decision” was filed without any objection by counsel, and in view of the fact that the right of the circuit judge in filing it has not been questioned, we will assume for the purposes of this case that it was the decision of the court such as is contemplated by the statute alluded to.

Upon this decision being filed judgment was entered “that plaintiff take nothing in this action, that defendant go hence without day, and that defendant have judgment for costs; to which judgment and decision the plaintiff duly excepted and which exception was allowed.”

It was admitted by both parties to the action at the time that one Keku (k) was the common source of title to the land in controversy and that he died intestate, seized of the land in fee simple.The question thus presented is, who were the heirs of Keku?The plaintiff claims the entire interest in the land by virtue of a deed executed to her by Kaapuni (w) and Kahiamoe (w), who were, as she contends, the only heirs of Keku-his next of kin.The defendant during the trial admitted the relationship of Kaapuni and Kahiamoe to Keku, but she contends that they only inherited an undivided one-half interest, and that she, as the daughter and sole heir of one Halauai (w), was likewise an heir of Keku, and as such inherited the other undivided one-half interest in the land.The plaintiff contends that there never was any such person as Halauai.

The plaintiff's contention that Kaapuni and Kahiamoe were the only heirs of Keku is based upon the following relationship, namely: That Kaliloa, Kauhaa and Kaainoa were sisters; that Kaliloa was the mother of Kaapuni and Kahiamoe; that Kauhaa was the mother of Uluhea (w) and Wailiilii (k); that Uluhea was the mother of Keku; that Kaainoa had no children; and that all the persons thus named, as well as all other persons possessing inheritable blood, were dead, leaving Kaapuni and Kahiamoe as the next of kin and only heirs of Keku.The defendant, while she admits the relationship of the persons just named, contends that Halauai was a sister of Kaliloa, Kaainoa and Kauhaa.The trial court found in favor of this contention; and, aside from the admissions by the parties, there was evidence tending to support the respective claims of each party upon the question as to the relationship of Halauai to Kaliloa, Kauhaa and Kaainoa.This was purely a question of fact, and, like all other facts involved in the case, exclusively within the province of the trial court to determine.This court has repeatedly held that in a jury waived case, the findings of fact by the trial court, when there is evidence tending to...