land. the Hawaiian laws, against his guardian, the land commission of title to the minor's who had, in fraud of the ward, presented a claim and obtained in his own name an award by the Hawaiian board of land commissioners of a title in fee simple to the ward's land, was not foreclosed by an af firmance in the Federal Supreme Court of a decree of the Hawaiian supreme court adjudging that the award in question could only be attacked by a direct appeal by a party who had presented his claims to the board, where the vitally important fact of guardianship was not included in the findings of fact certified to the Federal Supreme Court. [For other cases, see Judgment, III. 1, 2, b, 2. The Federal Supreme Court will ordinarily defer to the rulings of the local tourts with respect to the validity under the Hawaiian laws of a judgment of the Hawaiian courts. persons not [For other cases, see Appeal and Error, VIII. [For other cases, see Judgment, III. k, 2, [No. 174.] Re Kaniu, 2 Haw. 82; Re Kekauluohi, 6 Haw. 172; Kalakaua v. Keaweamahi 4 Haw. 577; Nakookoo v. Noholoa 19 Haw. 667; Wood v. Stark, 1 Haw. 9; Cockett v. Hubbard, 1 Haw. 101; Alo v. Blair, 1 Haw. 153; Dana v. Angel, 1 Haw. 196; Re Turner, 1 Haw. 266; Williams v. Kaea, 1 Haw. 236; Laanui v. Pouhu, 2 Haw. 161; Kapaakea v. Morrison, 2 Haw. 277; Montgomery ▼. Coady, 2 Haw. 329; Montgomery v. Montgomery, 2 Haw. 553; Ainini v. Kala, 6 Haw. 18; Kapea v. Moehonua, 6 Haw. 51; Davis v. Brewer, 3 Haw. 273; Davis v. Brewer, 3 Haw. 363; Wei See v. Young Sheong, 3 Haw. 489; Akeau v. Iakona, 13 Haw. 216; Norris v. Herblay, 9 Haw. 514; Mills v. Briggs, 4 Haw. 506; See Hop v. Parke, 6 Haw. 688; Hackfeld v. Bal, 6 Haw. 364; Sanford v. Sanford, 139 U. S. 642, 644, 35 L. ed. 290, 291, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 666; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 20 L. ed. 485; White v. Cannon, 6 Wall. 443, 18 L. ed. 923; Stark v. Starr, 6 Wall. 402, 419, 18 L. ed. 925; Ringo v. Binns, 10 Pet. 269, 9 L. ed. 420; United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691, 8 L. ed. 547; United States v. California & O. Land Co. 148 U. S. 31, 37 L. ed. 354, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458; Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640, 665, 28 L. ed. 547, 556, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 619; Angle v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 151 U. S. 1, 38 L. ed. 55, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240; Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. S. 317, 36 L. ed. 719, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. Argued April 30, 1915. Decided June 14, 862; Central Nat. Bank v. Connecticut Mut. A 1915. PPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii to review a decree which reversed a decree of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in that territory, enjoining the prosecution of an action of ejectment brought by one of the defendants, and requiring that defendants execute a conveyance to complainant. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See same case below, 21 Haw. 441. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. David L. Withington argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Alfred L. Castle, W. A. Greenwell, and William R. Castle, filed a brief for appellant: A minor, on coming of age, could obtain relief in equity against a guardian who had, in fraud of his ward, presented a claim and obtained in his own name an award from rill, 11 L.R.A. 155; Shores v. Hooper, 11 L.R.A. 308; Bank of United States v. Beverly, 11 L. ed. U. S. 76; Johnson Steel Street Rail Co. v. Wharton, 38 L. ed. U. S. 429; and Southern P. R. Co. v. United States, 42 L. ed. U. S. 355. L. Ins. Co. 104 U. S. 54, 26 L. ed. 693; Cook v. Tullis, 18 Wall. 332, 342, 21 L. ed. 933, 938; Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming & Mill. Co. 180 U. S. 72, 77, 45 L. ed. 432, 435, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S. 238, 32 L. ed. 926, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 525; Knight v. United Land Asso. 142 U. S. 161, 35 L. ed. 974, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 258; More v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 70, 32 L. ed. 51, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1067; Ainsa v. New Mexico & A. R. Co. 175 U. S. 76, 44 L. ed. 78, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; Barker v. Harvey, 181 U. S. 481, 45 L. ed. 963, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 690; Thurston v. Bishop, 7 Haw. 421; Rose v. Yoshimura, 11 Haw. 30; Kenoa v. Meek, 6 Haw. 63; Kekiekie ▼. Dennis, 1 Haw. 42; Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 326, 335, 18 L. ed. 547, 549; Carpentier v. Montgomery, 13 Wall. 480, 20 L. ed. 698. Kinimaka as guardian had absolute control and management of the ward's property, with the power of disposition. Kamehameha v. Kahookano, 2 Haw. 118; Laanui v. Pouhu, 2 Haw. 161. It was his duty to present the land to the land commission for award. Thurston v. Bishop, 7 Haw. 421. 238 U. & The guardian is under an equitable obligation to account. New York L. Ins. Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 435, 26 L. ed. 580; 21 Cyc. 166; Coulson v. Walton, 9 Pet. 62, 9 L. ed. 51; Dexter v. Hall, 15 Wall, 9, 21 L. ed. 73; White v. Joyce (White v. Miller) 158 U. S. 128, 39 L. ed. 921, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788; Griffith v. Godey, 113 U. S. 89, 93, 28 L. ed. 934, 937, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Barney v. Saunders, 16 How. 535, 542, 14 L. ed. 1047, 1051; Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 28 L. ed. 751, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221; Hoyt v. Sprague, 103 U. S. 613, 26 L. ed. 585; Colt v. Colt, 111 U. S. 566, 28 L. ed. 520, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553. This is a matter of local law and custom, in which this court should follow the local courts, which have in this action three times ruled the law with appellant. John II. Estate v. Brown, 235 U. S. 342, ante, 259, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Lewers & Cooke v. Atcherley, 222 U. S. 285, 292, 56 L. ed. 202, 205, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 94. This court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the supreme court of Hawaii in refusing to open up the decree of 1858 in aid of a speculator claiming title under a breach of trust by a wrongdoer, where this would result in mischief to innocent parties, and is not essential to the equities of the case. Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Janesville Cotton Mills, 138 U. S. 552, 34 L. ed. 1005, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 402; Kapiolani v. Atcherly, 14 Haw. 663; Lewers & Cooke v. Atcherley, 222 U. S. 285, 56 L. ed. 202, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 94; Gay v. Parpart, 106 U. S. 679, 696, 699. The ward in the accounting can elect to 27 L. ed. 256, 263, 264, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456, take the property. Yerger v. Jones, 16 How. 30, 37, 14 L. ed. 832, 835; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 401, 11 L. ed. 622, 653; May v. Le Claire, 11 Wall. 217, 235, 20 L. ed. 50, 54; Taylor v. Plumer, 3 Maule & S. 562, 2 Rose, 415, 16 Revised Rep. 361; United States v. State Nat. Bank, 96 U. S. 30, 34, 24 L. ed. 647, 648; Duncan v. Jaudon, 15 Wall. 165, 21 L. ed. 142; Cleveland v. Sprowl, 12 Rob. (La.) 172; Darlington v. Turner, 202 U. S. 231, 50 L. ed. 1007, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 630; 1 Bl. Com. p. 461; Eyre v. Shaftsbury, 2 P. Wms. 103. The right of the ward is a contractual or quasi contractual right against the guardian, not affected by a land commission award. Justinian, bk. 3, title 27, quoted in Scott's Cases on Quasi-Contracts, p. 1; Henry of Bracton, Laws and Customs of England, bk. 3, Folio 100, 10 (Scott, p. 4.); Keelikolani v. Robinson, 2 Haw. 514, 549; Laanui v. Pouhu, 2 Haw. 161; Kaaihue v. Crabbe, 3 Haw. 768; Jones v. Meek, 2 Haw. 9. This court should follow the law of the case decided by the supreme court of Hawaii when it was the court of last resort. Williams v. Conger, 125 U. S. 397, 415, 418, 31 L. ed. 778, 787, 788, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. New Orleans v. Fisher, 180 U. S. 185, 45 L. ed. 485, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 347; Hopkins ▾ Hebard, 235 U. S. 287, 59 L. ed. 232, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 26. The minor never had his day in court until the actions in 1858. 21 Cyc. 186; Woerner, Guardianship, § 21; Schouler, Dom. Rel. p. 469; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350, 366, 21 L. ed. 959, 963; Old Wayne Mut. Life Asso. v. McDonough 204 U. S. 8, 51 L. ed. 345, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep 236; Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales, 230 U. S. 139, 159, 57 L. ed. 1427, 1437, 33 Sup. Cl Rep. 1033. Mr. Lyle A. Dickey, pro se, argued th. cause, and with Mr. E. M. Watson and Mr Mary H. Atcherley, in propriis personi filed a brief for appellees: The supreme court of Hawaii did not er States Supreme Court decision, though that in holding that it must follow a United decision upholds a decision of the lower court on a matter of local law. Steele v. Boley, 7 Utah, 66, 24 Pac. 755; 26 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 153; Zerulla v. Supreme Lodge, O. M. P. 223 IIL 520, 79 N. E. 160. A collateral attack on a judicial proceeding is an attempt to avoid, defeat, or evade it, or to deny its force and effect in some manner not provided by law. 933; Cleaver v. Traders' Ins. Co. 40 Fed. 711; Hill v. Chicago & E. R. Co. 140 U. S. 52, 35 L. ed. 331, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 690; Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518, Kapiolani v. Atcherly, 14 Haw, 661. In the Lewers & Cooke Case both the 41 L. ed. 810, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 407; Henning v. Eldridge, 146 Ill. 305, 33 N. E. 754; Re Hawaiian court and this thoroughly underWarner, 158 Cal. 441, 111 Pac. 352; Camp-stood that the case was an equitable one, bell v. Perth Amboy Mut. Loan, Homestead & Bldg. Asso. 76 N. J. Eq. 347, 74 Atl. 144; Silva v. Pickard, 14 Utah, 245, 47 Pac. 144; St. Croix Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 4 S. D. 487, 57 N. W. 236. making an attack in equity on a judgment because of constructive fraud arising out of fiduciary relations between a ward and guar dian. Lewers & Cook v. Atcherley, 18 Haw. 626, 222 U. S. 292–294, 56 L. ed. 204, 205, 32 41; 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 522, 523; 23 Cyc. 1406; Sup. Ct. Rep. 94. Paahao v. Swinton, 20 Haw. 355; The ApolThe rule of the "law of the case" is not lon, 9 Wheat. 362, 6 L. ed. 111. involved here. Awards of the land commission have been held conclusive against every form of attack heretofore made on them. Claims of fraud, false testimony, infancy, and even the admission of the King that a party had a right to an award, have been of no avail. King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92, 100, 101, 54 L. ed. 396, 401, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225; Lewers & Cooke v. Atcherly, 222 U. S. 285, 295, 56 L. ed. 202, 205, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 94; William W. Bierce v. Waterhouse, 219 U. S. 320, 337, 55 L. ed. 237, 243, 31 Sup. Kekiekie v. Dennis, 1 Haw. 42; Kukilahu Ct. Rep. 241; 2 Cyc. 520; Hertz v. Woodman, v. Gill, 1 Haw. 54; Bishop v. Namakalaa, 218 U. S. 205, 212, 54 L. ed. 1001, 1005, 2 Haw. 240; Keelikolani v. Robinson, 2 Haw. 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621, 31 Cyc. 350; Great 539; Kanaina v. Long, 3 Haw. 335; KaWestern Teleg. Co. v. Burnham, 162 U. S. hoomana v. Moehonua, 3 Haw. 640; Kala339, 341, 40 L. ed. 991, 992, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. | kaua v. Keaweamahi, 4 Haw. 579; Kaai v. 850; Hamilton v. Marks, 63 Mo. 172; Jungk| Mahuka, 5 Haw. 354; Kenoa v. Meek, 6 Haw. v. Read, 12 Utah, 196, 42 Pac. 292; Reeves v. 67; Kekauluohi's Estate, 6 Haw. 178; ThursPetty, 44 Tex. 254; Norton v. Knapp, 64 ton v. Bishop, 7 Haw. 428. See also Meader Iowa, 112, 19 N. W. 867; Hastings v. Fox- v. Norton, 11 Wall. 442, 457, 20 L. ed. 184, worthy, 45 Neb. 697, 34 L.R.A. 321, 63 187; Carpentier v. Montgomery, 13 Wall. N. W. 955; Pennsylvania Co. v. Platt, 47 480, 495, 20 L. ed. 698, 701. Ohio St. 379, 25 N. E. 1028. The status of the Lewers & Cooke Case is that of a prior case, because judgment was first reached in it. Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court: Appeal to review a decree of the supreme 23 Cyc. 1113; 1 Van Fleet, Former Adjudi- court of Hawaii which reversed a decree of cation, 87, § 9. Appellant, having sold all equitable title in the land to Lewers & Cooke, Ltd., has no equitable interest in the subject-matter to sustain this suit. Dick v. Foraker, 155 U. S. 414, 416, 39 L. ed. 205, 206, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124; Bissell v. Kellogg, 60 Barb. 629; Chapman v. Jones, 149 Ind. 438, 47 N. E. 1065, 49 N. E. 347; Smith v. Brittenham, 109 Ill. 550; Glos v. Goodrich, 175 Ill. 25, 51 N. E. 643; Page County v. Burlington & M. R. Co. 40 Iowa, 525; Gilbert v. Cooley, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 494; Huntington v. Allen, 44 Miss. 654; Hutchinson v. Howe, 100 Ill. 19. A multiplicity of suits is against the principles of equity. If this suit be allowed, a separate one might be brought by every grantor in a chain of title who might be injured by a decree against his grantee, each waiting until the conclusion of the suit of his grantee. Albert v. Hamilton, 76 Md. 304, 25 Atl. 343; Roby v. Eggers, 130 Ind. 424, 29 N. E. 365. The Lewers & Cooke decree should be fol the circuit judge of the first judicial circuit, enjoining the prosecution of an action of ejectment brought by Mary H. Atcherley, one of the appellees, against appellant for the recovery of certain described lands, decreeing that appellant had the equitable title to the lands, and that appellees, including Dickey and Watson, who were made parties pending the suit, held the naked legal title thereto as tenants in common, one half thereof by Mary H. Atcherley and one quarter thereof by each of the other appellees, as trustees of appellant. The decree required that the appellees execute a conveyance of such title to appellant. The bill alleges that one David Kalakaua, under and through whom the appellant company (designated hereinafter as complainant) claims, on or about December 29, 1856, litigated his title with the following parties, under whom defendant Atcherley claims title, to wit: Kinimaka, Pai, his wife, and their children, in the supreme court of the Hawaiian Islands, lowed in this case because it is res judicata. to the lands in trust and as guardian [125] in equity, alleging that Kinimaka held title McCandless v. Castle, 19 Haw. 515; Spear of Kalakaua, and not otherwise, and praying v. Hill, 54 N. H. 89; William W. Bierce v. Waterhouse, 219 U. S. 334, 335, 55 L. ed. that he, Kinimaka, be declared trustee of 242, 243, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 241; Leslie v. the lands for Kalakaua, and be decreed to Bonte, 130 Ill. 498, 6 L.R.A. 62, 22 N. E. convey the same in fee to Kalakaua; that 594; Soward v. Coppage, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 436, summons was duly issued and served on 9 S. W. 389; Pace v. Maxwell, 62 Ga. 98; Kinimaka, who, hefore filing answer, died, Chew v. Brumagen, 13 Wall. 497, 505, 20 leaving a will devising the lands to his L. ed. 683, 666; Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. children, whom he left surviving him, and 1, 18, 19, 18 L. ed. 129, 134; Tootle v. Cole- his widow, Pai; that these facts were sugman, 57 L.R.A. 120, 46 C. C. A. 132, 107 Fed.gested to the court, and it was prayed that the widow and children be made parties to the suit, and a guardian ad litem be appointed for the children, it being alleged that they became trustees of the property in the same manner and under the same trust as Kinimaka. That subsequently (March 8, 1858) Kalakaua filed a petition for administration upon the estate of one Kaniu, deceased, under whom he claimed title to the lands, and for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor children of Kinimaka. That upon the filing of such petition George E. Beckwith, administrator of the estate of Kinimaka, was appointed guardian ad litem of the minor children of Kinimaka, and notice was served on him as such administrator and guardian, and upon Pai to show cause why letters of administration might not issue to Kalakaua upon the estate of Kaniu, deceased. That upon proceedings being had a decree was rendered adjudging Kalakaua to be the devisee of Kaniu, and directing letters to be issued to him. all ways as his own, and continued to do so until he disposed of said property." The bill here made "all the papers, pleadings, and exhibits of whatever kind in said equity proceedings" a part of it, and asked leave to refer to them as if actually incorporated therein. Then came the following: "And in this connection the plaintiff attaches hereto a copy of the original Land Commission award and royal patent [they were not previously referred to in the bill] and copies of the original record of evidence given before the Land Commission in support of said Land Commission award and royal patent, the same being referred to and made part of the evidence in said equity proceedings instituted in the years 1856 and 1857 above referred to, which said copies are made part of this bill." That the successors in title of Kalakaua (the conveyances being set out) had retained and had been in the same kind of possession and exercised the same disposition [127] as he. That such possession in Kalakaua and his successors was known to the children of Kinimaka; that they attained their majority respectively in 1867, 1871, and 1877, and at no time did they or any of them assert any claim to the land or deny the rights of Kalakaua or his successors, but acquiesced in his and their pos That on June 19, 1858, Kalakaua filed a further petition alleging the same facts substantially which he had alleged in the petitions of December 29, 1856, and March 16, 1857, with the additional fact that one Richard Armstrong had been appointed guardian of the minor children of Kini-session. maka, and prayed that he might be ordered to convey the lands to Kalakaua; and that a summons was duly served upon Armstrong as guardian of the children and upon Pai; that Armstrong and Pai subsequently answered; that evidence was taken, the case heard upon [126] the merits, and on November 2, 1858, the court duly entered the following decree: "David Kalakaua against Richard Armstrong, guardian of David Leleo, Kaniu, and Kinimaka, minor children of Kinimaka, deceased. The court did order, adjudge, and decree in this matter that Mr. Armstrong, the guardian of David Leleo, Kaniu, and Kinimaka, minor children of Kinimaka, deceased, do convey to David Kalakaua, the plaintiff in this case, the land named Onoulimaloo, on the island of Molokai, and the first Apana of land set forth in Royal Patent 1602 filed in this cause." That it did not appear either from the records of the court or from the registry of deeds in Honolulu that the decree of the court was in fact obeyed, but, it is alleged, that after the decree Kalakaua "ceased to be molested in any way by either the widow and heirs aforesaid of said Kinimaka, or by the said Armstrong in their behalf, and retained open, notorious, and indisputable possession and dealt with the said land in The manner by which defendants obtained the title they assert was set out, and it was alleged that owing to the failure of Armstrong to obey the decree of the court and convey the interest of the children of Kinamaka, as ordered by the court, complainant's required chain of title was incomplete, and that the action in ejectment of Mary H. Atcherley, one of the defendants, sought "to take unconscionable advantage of the above-mentioned technical error in the chain of title." A cloud upon the title of complainant was asserted hence to follow, and that it would be inequitable to permit her to prosecute her action of ejectment, and that as naked trustee of the title she should be required to convey it to appellant. An injunction, temporary and permanent, was prayed, and that Mary H. Atcherley, the defendant, be declared trustee and be required to convey the property to complainant. Copies of the proceedings referred to in the bill were annexed to it as exhibits. Among these, we have seen, were the award of the Land Commission and the royal title. The latter recites that "Whereas the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles has awarded to Kinimaka by award No. 129 a freehold estate less than allodial in the premises mentioned below, and, "Whereas, Kinimaka has paid into the government treasury eighty-two and 50/100 dollars for the government's rights in said land, terests were not permitted to go by default, but were fully defended by counsel. The decree, while not carried out by the execu tion of a conveyance, was in fact acquiesced in, as appears by the bill, by all concerned, and complainant and his successors in in "Therefore, by this Royal Patent Kame-terest from that time continuously until hameha III. shows . . that he has conveyed and [128] granted in fee simple to Kinimaka that land at Honolulu on the Island of Oahu with these boundaries . . . It is granted in fee simple to him, his heirs and devisees . . ." The lands in suit were part of the lands conveyed. Mary H. Atcherley, then being sole defendant, demurred to the bill on the ground that it did not set out a cause of action. By stipulation of the parties, in order to determine the question whether the decree of 1858 was res judicata, the circuit judge made a pro forma ruling sustaining the demurrer to the bill and dismissing it. The complainant appealed to the supreme court of the territory, it being stipulated that complainant should do so. The supreme court reversed the decree. 14 Haw. 651. In its opinion it recited the facts with great fullness, completed the allegations of the bill by the exhibits attached, and then disposed of the contentions as follows: about January, 1900, held open, notorious, and undisturbed possession of the land. Under the circumstances, and after a lapse of more than forty years, we do not think that the court should examine into the merits of the former proceedings, or refuse to enforce the decree for the reasons suggested." Upon the filing of the mandate of the supreme court in the court below, Mary H. Atcherley filed an answer in which she admitted many of the allegations of the bill, denied some-among others, the undisturbed possession of the land in Kalakaua and his successors, as alleged, and the inferences from it-asserted the validity of her title, and the staleness of complainant's demand, it having been "brought forty-three years, or more than four times the term of the statute of limitations, since the alleged date of the alleged decree ordering Richard Armstrong to give a conveyance." That to enforce a conveyance from her without giving her an opportunity to be heard upon the matters set forth in the bill would deprive her of property without due process of law, contrary to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the 1. The decree adjudging Kalakaua to be the owner of the land, and requiring conveyance of it to be made to him by Armstrong as guardian of the children of Kini-United States. maka, was not ambiguous, but it took certainty from the averments of the bill and the record, and there could "be no doubt that it was the intention of the court to order the conveyance of the interests of the minors." 2. The minors were bound by the decree notwithstanding "they were not named as parties defendant in the suit." This was decided on the authority of Hawaiian cases and the power of guardians over the estates of their wards established by them, and upon the general principle of collateral at tacks upon judgments. And specifically replying to the contention that the decree was not binding because of "the lack of service and upon the merits," and that the court should refuse to enforce the decree, it was said: By a supplemental answer she alleged the following, which we state narratively: Since the filing of the answer the complainant Kapiolani [130] Estate, Limited, has parted with all of its estate in the land by a deed of a small portion to certain named parties and the balance, with covenants of warranty, to Lewers and Cooke, Limited, a Hawaiian corporation. June 29, 1906, that corporation brought suit in the court of land registration to register its title to the land conveyed. September 16, 1907, it was decreed that the corporation had a good title which was entitled to registration. The decree was reversed by the supreme court of the territory March 5, 1908, that court holding that the corporation had no title, legal or equi table, to the land. 18 Haw. 625. The case [129] "It is not contended that the court was remitted to the court of land regismust in all such cases re-examine the former tration for further proceedings, and that proceedings, but merely that it may, in its court dismissed the petition of the corporadiscretion, do so. Assuming that to be so, tion. The latter appealed from the decision we decline to retry the old case. The guardi- to the supreme court of the territory, an appeared and contested the complainant's which court modified the decree, and, on claim, presenting in opposition substan- March 24, 1909, entered a final decree that tially the same views now sought to be the corporation had no title, legal or equiurged by the respondent. The ward's in-table, to the land. 19 Haw. 334. Upon |