Civil Action No. 414 Trial Division of the High Court. May 26,1967. Truk District. AUGUSTA FRED, Plaintiff v. FATIOL AIRINIOS, Defendant

Similar documents
FURBER, Temporary Judge

Civil Action No. 144 Trial Division of the High Court. July 23, JOSEPH, Plaintiff. ONES!, Defendant. Truk District. JOSEPH v. ONES!

NGIRAIECHOL v. INGLAI CLAN. Island in the Mortlock Islands of the Truk.District, and

Civil Action No. 151 Trial Division of the High Court. February 3, LIKINONO and SOLOMON L., Plaintiffs v. Marshall Islands District

Civil Action No. 298 Trial Division of the High Court. May 15,1964 BARAO TUCHURUR, Plaintiff. RECHULD, Defendant. Palau District

Civil Action No. 237 Trial Division of the High Court Palau District. March 12, NGERDELOLEK VILLAGE, Peleliu Municipality,

Mertakrear wato, and Mertakrelik wato, all four wato being located on Kwajalein Atoll in the. Marshall Islands District

Criminal Case No. 116 Trial Division of the High Court. December 22, TIMAS and W ANTER, Appellants

Civil Action No. 47 Trial Division of the High Court. February 28, v. GUOT, Defendant. Yap District

Civil Action No. 330 Trial Division of the High Court. January 31,1969. NENJIR, Plaintiff v. RILAN, Defendant. Marshall Islands District

TRUST TERRITORY REPORTS

Civil Action No. 11 Trial Division of the High Court. July 29, GODLIEB, Plaintiff. WELTEN, PETERINA and MERIANDA, Defendants.

Specific approval of a will by an alab is not necessary.

Civil Action No. 269 Trial Division of the High Court. December 30, 1968

Civil Action No. 121 Trial Division of the High Court. February 5, ROCHUNAP, Plaintiff. YOSOCHUNE and EIS, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 313 Trial Division of the High Court. December 30, PRIDA SANTOS and NELEN LIPAI, Plaintiffs v. ANTON LIPAI, Defendant

Civil Action No. 388 Trial Division of the High Court Marshall Islands District. March 8, CLEMENT JANRE, Plaintiff. LEBAL LABUNO, Defendant

TERESIA, Plaintiff. NEIKINIA, Defendant

Civil Action No. 478 Trial Division of the High Court. February 16, Truk District. KIOMASA KAMINANGA, Plaintiff

Combined Civil Action No.1 Trial Division of the High Court. June 1,1953

Criminal Case No. 40 Trial Division of the High Court. April 16, Marshall Islands District. JOHN DAY, Appellant

Civil Acti{)n No and RIDEP SOLANG, Appellant. Civil Action No Trial Division of the High Court. March 21, 1974

Civil Action No. 340 Trial Division of the High Court. November 17, PIUS ITOL, Plaintiff v. RONALD SAKUMA and NGETUBERHAI ANTOL, Defendants

Civil Action No. 81 Trial Division of the High Court. June 2,1965

is disr 3sed, the defendant is discharged from custody and tl:, bail posted in the sum of $50 is exonerated and releast ',.

Civil Action No. 36. Trial Division of the High Court. March 18, 1955

Criminal Case No Trial Division of the High Court. April 4, TASIO, AI)pellant v. TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS, Appellee

COUNTY OF CAYUGA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2018

Civil Action No Trial Division of the High Court. August 1, 1974

Bylaws of The James Irvine Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, as amended through December 8, 2016.

Civil Action No Trial Division of the High Court. June 30, medul NGORIAKL and ROMAN TMETUCHL, Defendants. and ROMAN TMETUCHL, Complainant

LaMOTTE V. U.S. 254 U.S. 570 (1921) Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv PGS-LHG Document 130 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 4283

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 6

CHAPTER 86 - LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANIES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Action No. 505 Trial Division of the High Court. December 28, 1970

TITLE 32 THE BUSINESS BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACT OF 2012

Submitted October 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.

AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS OF ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL BOOSTER CLUB ARTICLE I NAME, PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND SEAL

Civil Action No Trial Division of the High Court. January 21, PEDRO KIHLENG, Plaintiff v. SILBANUS LUCIOS, Defendant.

BYLAWS OF THE THE MEDITERRANEAN VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLE II. OFFICES

BYLAWS. OMeGA Medical Grants Association ARTICLE I. The name of the company shall be OMeGA Medical Grants Association. ARTICLE II PURPOSES

Civil Action No. 273 Trial Division of the High Court. July 12, v. JAMES MILNE and ALEXANDER MILNE, Defendants

OF LYNN In City. City shall mean the City of Lynn, in the county of Essex, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Civil Appeal No. 342 Appellate Division of the High Court. November 23, TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS, Defendant-Appellant

TITLE 1 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 1 CHAPTER 1 BOARD OF MAYOR AND ALDERMEN 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between MICHAEL LEO SLATER. And ESTHER RUBY SLATER

Case: 2:08-cv AGF Doc. #: 42 Filed: 06/24/09 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 172

Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with respect to a Foreign State, etc.

AGREED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Twelfth Kerala Legislative Assembly Bill No. 301 THE REGISTRATION (KERALA AMENDMENT) BILL, Kerala Legislature Secretariat 2009

Civil Action No. 333 Trial Division of the High Court. November 6, INDALECIO RUDIMCH, Plaintiff v.

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1995 ELIZABETH FARAH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

BYLAWS OF THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION ARTICLE I NAME

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND

Bylaws of the American Board of Neuroscience Nursing

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2005 SHELLEY RODEHEAVER. STATE OF MARYLAND et al.

BYLAWS MUTUAL FUND DIRECTORS FORUM. (a District of Columbia Non-Profit Corporation)

Association Typographique Internationale ( ATypI )

BYLAWS OF CONSORTIUM OF FORENSIC SCIENCE ORGANIZATIONS, INC.

Case 1:09-cv SAS Document 59-1 Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT A

BYLAWS of the WEST REHOBOTH COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, INC. ARTICLE I: Name and Purpose

BYLAWS. PAWS of CNY, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Article/Section Heading Page ARTICLE I OFFICES 3. Section 1.01 Location 3 ARTICLE II MEMBERS 3

BYLAWS OF SOLANO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS FOUNDATION, A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 H 2 HOUSE BILL 843 Committee Substitute Favorable 4/26/17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. 2000: January 10 and 11 JUDGMENT. [2] The Plaintiff resides on the land which is involved in this case.

LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MARRIED PERSONS ACT CHAPTER 45:50. Act 52 of 1976

Civil Action No. 38 Trial Division of the High Court. February 20, MARTHILYANO RUBELUKAN, Plaintiff v. FRENDO FALEWAATH, Defendant.

Bylaws of Pikes Peak Permaculture. Adopted Sept. 9, Table of Contents

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and

BYLAWS OF STREAM HOUSE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I NAME AND PRINCIPAL OFFICE

IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) JUDGMENT

William Luther Brookes and another v James Hendrickson and another CIVIL SUIT NO: 51 OF 1997

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY ABUJA AREA COURTS (REPEAL AND ENACTMENT) ACT, 2010

BYLAWS OF THE TIERRA VIDA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

THE MENTAL HEALTH ACTS, 1962 to 1964

ANNEXATION APPLICATION PACKET

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEV ADA. consented to the entry of this Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction (the "Decree"), without

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Long Form Prenuptial Agreement Another Form PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT

MENTAL HEALTH (JERSEY) LAW Revised Edition Showing the law as at 1 January 2017 This is a revised edition of the law

BY-LAWS OF RESERVE AT CHADDS FORD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. As Amended March 22, 1999*

YAKAMA INDIAN NATION. Ordinance No. T YAKAMA INDIAN NATION GAMING ORDINANCE OF 1994

DESIGNATION OF FUND This Fund shall be known as the Kingdom Legacy Endowment Fund, hereafter referred to in this document as the Fund.

BYLAWS of SONOMA COUNTY RADIO AMATEURS, INC. a California Public Benefit Corporation TABLE OF CONTENTS

AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES FOUNDATION (CSULA FOUNDATION) A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION

BYLAWS OF FIRE SAFE SONOMA, INC. A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ARTICLE 1

BYLAWS SOCIETY FOR PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT FOUNDATION. (formed under the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act) ARTICLE I Name

BY-LAWS OF THE PLANO INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL CORPORATION

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Case 4:16-cv CW Document 75-4 Filed 08/14/18 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:07-cv RAJ Document 87 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

ROTUMA LANDS BILL 2015 (BILL NO. 7 of 2015)

Section 3-Executors and Witnesses.

Rotary Club of Martinez Foundation Bylaws

Transcription:

AUGUSTA FRED, Plaintiff v. FATIOL AIRINIOS, Defendant Civil Action No. 414 Trial Division of the High Court Truk District May 26,1967 Action to determine ownership of land in Oneop Island, Lukunor Atoll Mortlock Islands, in which each party claims right to sell or transfer land which belongs to lineage. The Trial Division of the High Court, Chief Justice E. P. Furber, held that sale or gift of lineage or family land in Mortlock Islands to outsider is invalid without unanimous consent of all members, and that none of properties in dispute may be sold by either party without consent of the other and consent or acquiescence of all other adult members of lineage. 1. Truk Land Law-Mortlock Islands Sale or gift of family land in Mortlocks to outsider is invalid without unanimous consent of all adult members, and without such consent lineage head has no right of sale. 2. Truk Land Law-Mortlock Islands Those to whom use rights in lineage property in Mortlocks have been assigned hold under lineage, subject to its control in accordance with local custom, no matter how long they or their predecessors in interest may have been in possession. 3. Truk Land Law-Mortlock Islands If those to whom use rights in lineage property in Mortlocks have been assigned persist in denying lineage rights, this is adequate ground for lineage to reassign use rights to someone else. 4. Truk Land Law-Mortlock Islands Under Mortlocks custom, lineage members have duty to cooperate and advance their mutual interests, and lack of such cooperation does not give lineage members power to sell or give away lineage properties. 274

Assessor: Interpreter: Counsel for Plaintiff: Counsel for Defendant: FURBER, Chief Justice FRED v. AIRINIOS JUDGE F. SOUKICHI SABASTIAN FRANK FLORIAN SEADY KALWIN SMITH Counsel for the defendant Fatiol argued that the Master's findings were contrary to the evidence and that the persons who had been using the properties in question up to 1966, although connected with the plaintiff, had been acting in the care of these properties in the name of the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff Augusta stated he agreed with the Master's findings, but admitted that the plaintiff was only claiming interests in part of certain of the properties named in the complaint. OPINION This action involves a dispute as to the ownership of a part or the whole of at least three pieces of dry land (one of which the plaintiff claims is in two parts), and three taro swamps, all located on Oneop Island in Lukunor Atoll, Mortlock Islands, Truk District. The plaintiff says she has been designated by agreement of her family to represent all of their interests in this action. As to certain of the properties, she claims for her mother's sister, Linis, and the plaintiff's daughter, Mata; as to one, for Linis alone; as to another, for her sister, Resta; and as to other property, for all of the children of her father, Oloper. Since, however, there appears to be no dispute whatever within the plaintiff's family and the whole issue raised in this action relates to the rights of the defendant as against each and all of the plaintiff's family, noeifort is made herein to differentiate the particular rights of the different members of the plaintiff's family. 275

H.C.T.T. Tr. Div. TRUST TERRITORY REPORTS May 26, 1967 The defendant Fatiol claims essentially that all of the properties in question are lineage properties and that he has also acquired the use-rights in them, and as head of the lineage, has the right to sell them. As to two of the taro swamps, he also claims to have told the plaintiff and her family to get out of them because they purported to give away one of them. In spite of language at various points which taken literally would appear to indicate claim of individual ownership, the court considers it clear from the Master's Report and the transcript of evidence attached thereto taken as a whole, that all of the properties in question are in fact owned by the lineage of which the defendant Fatiol is the male head and of which the plaintiff Augusta and all those for whom she claims are members. [1-3] For a general description of Mortlockese custom as to lineage or family lands, see Tolerton and Rauch, "Social Organization, Land Tenure and Subsistence Economy of Lukunor, Nomoi Islands", p. 66-73-A, and Land Tenure Patterns, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Vol. 1, p. 167-180. The court is firmly of the opinion that the following statement on p. 168 of Land Tenure Patterns outlines the general rule as to lineage or family properties in the Mortlocks:- "Sale or gift of family land to an outsider is considered invalid without the unanimous consent of all members." It is to be implied that this consent is only required from the adult members, but, certainly without their consent or acquiescence, the lineage head has no right of sale. Similarly, those to whom the use-rights in such properties have been assigned still hold under the lineage, and subject to its control in accordance with local custom, no matter how long they or their predecessors in interest may have been in possession. If they persist in denying the 276

FRED v. AIRINIOS lineage rights, this will undoubtedly be adequate ground for the lineage to reassign the use-rights to someone else. In the present instance, however, the plaintiff Augusta, on behalf of herself and others, has brought this issue promptly enough to court, acknowledging lineage ownership, so that the court is satisfied any previous threats by her or those for whom she claims to alienate some of the property without the consent of the defendant Fatiol, should not be considered adequate ground to strip her or those for whom she claims of their use-rights which the co.urt firmly agrees with the Master the evidence clearly $,Upports.,'. [4] Unfortunately, relations within this lineage have deteriorated badly and both sides are trying to stress their individual rights in disregard of their traditional duty to cooperate and endeavor to advance their mutual interests. Such lack of cooperation, however, gives neither one power to sell or give awayany of the lineage properties. They should both be content with the limitations on their rights imposed by the system under which they hold them. The court therefore holds that none of the properties in dispute may be sold by either party without the consent of the other and the consent of acquiescence of all other adult members of the lineage. JUDGMENT Upon consideration of the Master's Report, the transcript of evidence attached to it and the oral arguments of counsel, the Master's Report is approved with the qualification that the statement therein concerning ownership by Aleso and his giving properties to his wife and children relate only to the ownership and giving of use-rights, and it is Ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows:- 277

H.C.T.T. '1'... Diy. TRUST TERRITORY REPORTS May 26, 1967 1. As between the parties and all persons claiming under them, the following properties, all located on Oneop Island, Lukunor Atoll, Mortlock Islands, Truk District, are owned as follows:- a. The part of the dry land Olap in dispute, known to the plaintiff Augusta as Olap Kiteu and Olap Kita (sometimes spelt Kitte), but which the defendant Fatiol says is all one section; the part of the dry land Liki Set in dispute; the approximately half of the dry land Liki Sech in dispute (Le., all except the part to which the plaintiff Augusta makes no claim) ; the northern roughly one-third of the taro swamp Fenkiliau; and the taro swamps Lechep and Puennik; are owned by the matrilineal lineage of which the defendant Fatiol is the male head and of which the plaintiff Augusta and those for whom she claims are members. b. The plaintiff Augusta or one or more of those for whom she claims own use-rights in each of the properties named above, subject to the supervision and control of the lineage in accordance with Mortlockese custom. c. The defendant Fatiol, as the head of the lineage in question, is entitled to take from each of the said properties whatever produce he reasonably requires for his own personal needs. 2. The plaintiff Augusta and each of those for whom she claims, and the defendant Fatiol, are each permanently enjoined and restrained from selling or otherwise transferring the ownership of any of said properties without the consent of both Augusta and FatioI. 3. Nothing herein contained is intended to or is to be construed as limiting the right of the lineage to reassign use-rights in any of said properties for good cause arising hereafter. 4. This judgment shall not affect any rights of way there may be over any of the properties in question. 278