limitation doctrine in Hawaii

1956On the reservoir being filled, the water burst down these shafts, and flowed by the underground communication into the plaintiff’s mines * * In the answering brief on behalf of the respondents herein, the case of Ainsworth v. Lakin, 180 Mass. 397 , has been cited as a limitation of the doctrine (of Fletcher v. Rylands) and this is quoted therefrom: “This rule is rightly applicable only to such unusual and extraordinary uses of property in reference to the benefits to be derived from the use and the dangers or losses to which others are exposed, as should not be permitted, except at the sole ri

1956The standard of duty established by the courts in these cases is that every owner shall refrain from these unwarrantable and extremely dangerous uses of property unless he provides safeguards whose perfection he guarantees.” (Emphasis added in the brief.) *336 But, respondents failed to quote a modifying additional sentence, to wit: “That there are uses of property not forbidden by law to which this doctrine properly may be applied is almost universally acknowledged.” Respondents have also cited Carpenter v. City of Santa Monica, 147 P. (2d) 964 ; Cunningham v. Prevow, 192 S. W. (2d) 338 ; Cur

1956The standard of duty established by the courts in these cases is that every owner shall refrain from these unwarrantable and extremely dangerous uses of property unless he provides safeguards whose perfection he guarantees.” (Emphasis added in the brief.) *336 But, respondents failed to quote a modifying additional sentence, to wit: “That there are uses of property not forbidden by law to which this doctrine properly may be applied is almost universally acknowledged.” Respondents have also cited Carpenter v. City of Santa Monica, 147 P. (2d) 964 ; Cunningham v. Prevow, 192 S. W. (2d) 338 ; Cur

1956The standard of duty established by the courts in these cases is that every owner shall refrain from these unwarrantable and extremely dangerous uses of property unless he provides safeguards whose perfection he guarantees.” (Emphasis added in the brief.) *336 But, respondents failed to quote a modifying additional sentence, to wit: “That there are uses of property not forbidden by law to which this doctrine properly may be applied is almost universally acknowledged.” Respondents have also cited Carpenter v. City of Santa Monica, 147 P. (2d) 964 ; Cunningham v. Prevow, 192 S. W. (2d) 338 ; Cur

1956The standard of duty established by the courts in these cases is that every owner shall refrain from these unwarrantable and extremely dangerous uses of property unless he provides safeguards whose perfection he guarantees.” (Emphasis added in the brief.) *336 But, respondents failed to quote a modifying additional sentence, to wit: “That there are uses of property not forbidden by law to which this doctrine properly may be applied is almost universally acknowledged.” Respondents have also cited Carpenter v. City of Santa Monica, 147 P. (2d) 964 ; Cunningham v. Prevow, 192 S. W. (2d) 338 ; Cur

1917While the law does require of all parties the exercise of reasonable prudence in the business of life, and does not permit one to rest indifferent in reliance upon the interested representations of an adverse party, still, as before suggested, there is a certain limitation to this rule, and, as between the .original parties to the transaction, we consider that where it appears that one party has been guilty of an intentional and deliberate fraud, by which, to his knowledge, the other party has been misled, or influenced in his action, he cannot escape the legal consequences of his fraudulent c

1917While the law does require of all parties the exercise of reasonable prudence in the business of life, and does not permit one to rest indifferent in reliance upon the interested representations of an adverse party, still, as before suggested, there is a certain limitation to this rule, and, as between the .original parties to the transaction, we consider that where it appears that one party has been guilty of an intentional and deliberate fraud, by which, to his knowledge, the other party has been misled, or influenced in his action, he cannot escape the legal consequences of his fraudulent c

1915Co., 19 Haw. 106 , a case analogous in principle to the case at bar, where the rule in question was invoked, this court said (at page 118), “The limitation of the rule is that •when the legal right is reasonably clear and there is no uncertainty of the principles of law involved, its establishment at law is not required but equity will ascertain the existence of the right as well as protect it.

1912In United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 556, 565 , a case often cited in support of the rule that in certain cases the meaning of the legislature may be extended beyond the precise words used in the law, the supreme court pointed out that there is a limitation to the rule as follows, “the limitation of the rule being, that to extend the meaning to any case not included, in the words, the case must be shown to come within the same reason upon which the lawmaker proceeded, and not only within a like reason.” The appellant’s claim does not fall within the category of moneys “wrongfully collected”- —

1908Rhobidas v. City of Concord, 70 N. H. 90; 47 At. 82 .