Peabody v. Damon
| Decision Date | 30 January 1905 |
| Citation | 16 Haw. 447 |
| Parties | LUCY K. PEABODY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. S. M. DAMON, J. O. CARTER, W. F. ALLEN, CHARLES M. HYDE AND W. O. SMITH, TRUSTEES UNDER THE WILL OF B. P. BISHOP, DECEASED, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT.
Syllabus by the Court
Plaintiff claimed the land sued for as one of the heirs at law of Charles Kanaina. Upon the administrator's petition in 1879, alleging payment of debts and that certain persons decreed to be heirs were unable to agree on partition, but that the majority desired a sale at public auction, and praying for an order of notice calling upon all interested to appear and show cause and that the lands be sold, order was made accordingly and the property was sold at auction. The land in question was bought by Ruth Keelikolani. Her devisee, Bernice Pauahi Bishop, devised the property to five trustees and their successors, defendants being four of the present trustees. The plaintiff knew of the proceedings above mentioned, of the opportunity to present her claim, of the advertisement and the day the sale would take place and of the sale that was made; also that she was related to the decedent. She made no claim because of instructions from her grandmother that she should not set up her pedigree as in any way connected with the Kamehamehas. She told no one about her claim, and after the death of the royal princesses Ruth and Pauahi she thought no more of the matter until informed that all of the claimants of the estate were going to be shut off. She did not intend to deceive or mislead anyone. Upon defendants' motion the court directed a verdict for them on the ground that the facts showed that the plaintiff was equitably estopped from bringing this action. Held: The verdict was properly directed, the plaintiff having had “the opportunity and apparent duty to speak,” and that her silence under the circumstances equitably estops her from now presenting her claim; also that her motive for not presenting her claim was immaterial, the consequences being the same as if she had intended that her silence should lull those concerned into a sense of security.
Held: The question of estoppel in this case was not for the jury but for the court, there being no facts in controversy and no uncertainty as to inferences to be drawn from them, following Smith v. Hamakua Mill Co., 15 Haw. 655.
E. C. Peters for plaintiff.
Kinney, McClanahan & Cooper; S. H. Derby and Holmes & Stanley for defendants.
The plaintiff in error brought an action of ejectment against the defendants in error which was tried in the circuit court of the first circuit. At the close of the evidence the defendants moved that a verdict in their favor be directed on several grounds, including equitable estoppel. On this ground alone the motion was granted. The error assigned is that “the court erred in having against plaintiff's objection directed the jury to render a verdict against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants.” The defendants in error contend that the three grounds of their motion on which the court did not pass were good, and that if any one of them is sustained the writ of error ought to be dismissed. The conclusion which we have reached on the question of estoppel renders it unnecessary to consider this contention.
The plaintiff in error claimed the land in controversy by devise from one Kahookulimoko, claimed by her to have been one of the heirs at law of Charles Kanaina, who died intestate in Honolulu March 13, 1877, leaving no widow, child, grandchild, parent, brother or sister. There was litigation over the Kanaina estate from 1877 to 1881. A proceeding was brought by certain claimants under Kanaina's maternal grandmother, Moana, and her four husbands, under the act of 1874, to quiet land titles, resulting in an adjudication of heirs. Kalakaua v. Parke, 8 Haw. 623. In a later proceeding the act of 1874 was held to be unconstitutional, and a new decree of heirship was made. Est. of Kanaina, Ib. 627. In December, 1879, W. C. Parke, administrator of the estate, filed his petition alleging payment of debts, that the real estate remained in his charge, and that certain heirs who had been decreed to own it were unable to agree on a division, but that a majority desired a sale by public auction, praying that an order of notice be published in the English and Hawaiian languages calling upon all interested to appear and show cause and that the lands be sold. An order was made accordingly, the property was sold at auction, the piece in question being bought by Ruth Keelikolani. Her devisee, Bernice Pauahi Bishop, devised the property to five trustees and their successors, the defendants being four of the present trustees. The case as presented by the evidence is as follows: The plaintiff testified that she was living with Queen Emma when Kanaina died; that she knew there was an opportunity for relations to put in their claims to his estate, that the claimants were called to come in and she knew this because it was a matter of importance in those days; that the making of the claims and the disposition thereof were matters of great notoriety; that the matter was known throughout the whole kingdom; that she was well acquainted with all the judges and with the administrator, W. C. Parke; that the trial itself was well known in Honolulu, that she was in Honolulu at the time and heard of the decision, that she remembered Princess Ruth as a claimant and also many other claimants that appeared; that the matter was one of great notoriety because Kanaina held a large estate; that she knew of the sale and that the same was advertised all over the city; that the sale was a matter of great notoriety and publicity; that she knew from the newspapers the day the sale would take place; that she knew at the time of the sale that she was related to Kanaina; that she made no claim because of the instructions of her grandmother that she was not to set up her pedigree as in any way connected with the Kamehamehas, but now they were dead she was coming in to claim her rights; that it was through Princesses Ruth and Pauahi Bishop that the Kamehamehas were connected with the matter and she was not going to set up her claim against theirs; that she told no one about her claim; that after the death of Ruth and Pauahi she thought no more of the matter until informed that all the claimants of the estate were going to be shut off; that her relations with Ruth and Pauahi were of a most intimate character; that they had known each other for a great many years; that it was from no fear of Ruth's displeasure or punishment that she did not set up her claim but simply of the admonition of her grandmother that she never told Ruth of her claim; that she made no claim at the hearing; that she did not stop others from making claims but kept hers to herself; that she kept her claim from Ruth because she did not want to set it up against her; that she kept silent on account of the chiefs, (referring to Ruth and Pauahi); that if these chiefs had made no claim against the estate of Kanaina she would certainly have put in her claim, that her conduct was out of respect to those two chiefs, that she knew others had claims to the estate and the relation of all such parties to Kanaina; that her action in regard to not presenting her claim was taken “deliberately, knowingly;” that the heirship to the Kanaina estate was a matter of general talk in those days; that she never informed Ruth of her grandmother's admonition; that it was a rule among Hawaiians that those on a lower level should not set up their relationship to those in higher places; that her reason for finally bringing suit was that she heard that the doors were to be shut; that she then brought suit against many persons, and that she thought nothing about the purchasers at the Kanaina sale and how they would suffer. The plaintiff in her testimony emphatically denied that she intended to deceive or mislead anyone or that other claimants should act without knowledge of her claim. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's silence under all the circumstances equitably estops her from bringing this action. The plaintiff does not question that the defense may be made in an action at law but she denies that equitable estoppel is shown, and claims that at any rate there was uncertainty whether the evidence showed all the elements of estoppel and therefore that the question ought to have been left to the jury. Where evidence is “capable of more than one construction” or of “more than one inference, the jury alone is to determine the meaning to be conveyed, and the inference to be drawn from facts proved where more than one inference may be so drawn reasonably.” Perry, J., in Smith v. Hamakua Mill Co., 15 Haw. 655. The rule so stated certainly goes as far as the plaintiff can reasonably ask; but the case has no facts in controversy, no uncertainty as to inferences to be drawn from them. The fact that Ruth Keelikolani and Pauahi Bishop were acquainted with each other and knew each other as kindred of Kanaina does not authorize the inference that either of them knew...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sutton v. Hawaiian Trust Co.
...is an estoppel against the guardians which gives the bidder the right to purchase is without any merit. The Hawaiian case cited, Peabody v. Damon, 16 Haw. 447, is one where an individual who stands by and sees property sold as belonging to certain heirs and does nothing, is estopped later t......