Certiorari and cross-certiorari were sought by the respective parties and granted by this Court to review the questions presented because of the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals in reversing conclusions of the Supreme Court of Hawaii as to applicable principles of law.Christian v. Waialua Agricultural Co., 31 Haw. 817; 33 Haw. 34.Waialua Agricultural Co. v. Christian, 52 F.2d 847.

Any other decree to which we may hereinafter refer will be differentiated by reference to its date. The final decree was not entered in the trial court but was entered by this court under and pursuant to the powers reposed in it by R.L.H. 1935, § 3595. For a history of the proceedings prior to final decree see 31 Haw. 242, 348, 817; 32 Haw. 30, 67; 33 Haw. 34; 93 F.2d 603; 94 F.2d 806; 304 U.S. 553; 305 U.S. 91, 673. The action in which the decree was entered was a suit in equity instituted by the incompetent, by the guardian of her estate, against the Waialua Agricultural Company, Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "W.A. Co."), and others, to cancel as to said incompetent three instruments to which she was a party and had executed prior to her incompetency, being judicially ascertained, to wit, a deed to the agent of the W.A. Co., dated May 2, 1910, in which she joined as grantor, a lease to the company, dated March 17, 1905, in which she joined as lessor, and a contract for her maintenance and support, dated August 31, 1906, between herself and her cousin, Annie Holt Kentwell, upon the ground, among others, that at the respective times of the execution of said instruments she was mentally incompetent to execute the same.

As a general rule, a contract made by an infant or minor is voidable at the will of the minor, unless the contract is for "necessaries." See Garay v. Overholtzer, 332 Md. 339, 631 A.2d 429, 443 (1993) (explaining that "[g]enerally, the law regards contractual obligations of minors as voidable, giving the minor child the choice whether to avoid the contract, or to perform it" and that "[i]t is well established . . . that a minor is liable for the value of necessaries furnished to him or her" (internal citations omitted)); Gardner v. Flowers, 529 S.W.2d 708, 709-10 (Tenn. 1975) (stating that "[i]n general, an infant can avoid his contracts" and that "[a]n exception is made if the contract is for `necessaries'" (internal citations omitted)); Christian v. Waialua Agric. Co., 33 Haw. 34, 81 (1934) (Banks, J. dissenting) (noting that "[i]t is also well settled that, while an insane person or a minor is bound by his contract for necessaries furnished him, the extent of his obligation thereunder is to pay the reasonable value of such necessaries, irrespective of the price which he has agreed to pay"); Field v. Hughes, 131 Cal.App. 144, 20 P.2d 990, 991 (1933) (stating that "[t]he contract of a minor, except for necessaries furnished to him or his family, or for an obligation incurred by direct authority of statute, may be disaffirmed by him"). Some jurisdictions have provided a specific definition of the term "necessaries" to include what is thought of essentially, as the need for human survival.

Like her death, Eliza's life has been the focus of some controversy. See Christian v. Waialua Agricultural Co., 31 Haw. 817 (1931) and 33 Haw. 34 (1934). The second of these Christian decisions was reversed by the Ninth Circuit, 93 F.2d 603 (1937), but on appeal was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, 305 U.S. 91 (1938).

LYLE BROWN, Justice, concurring. I `could decide this suit on the point of law raised by the Housing Authority. Its contention is that, as a bona fide purchaser of the property from the grantees of incompetents who leave not been so adjudicated, its title should be protected. That position is the better rule of property law and is the rule in most jurisdictions. Goldberg v. McCord, 251 N.Y. 28, 166 N.E. 793 (1929); Brown v. Khoury, 346 Mich. 97, 77 N.W.2d 336 (1956); and Christian v. Waialua Agriculture Co., 33 Haw. 34 (1934). The cited cases are based on case law, not statutes. There are numerous holdings to the same effect in Kentucky but they are backed by statute.

Pursuant to the general rule of custody that the welfare of the children has paramount consideration, this court consistently has given preference over the father in favor of the mother where her custody appears more beneficial to the child. ( Re Thompson Minor, 32 Haw. 479; Fernandes v. Fernandes, 32 Haw. 608; Robello v. Robello, 33 Haw. 34; Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz, 35 Haw. 95; Jay v. Jay, 37 Haw. 34; Daitoku v. Daitoku, 39 Haw. 276; Yankoff v. Yankoff, 40 Haw. 179.) That does not mean, however, that custody will not be awarded to the father where his custody appears more beneficial than the mother's. ( Dascoscos v. Dascoscos, 38 Haw. 265.)

This case will hereafter be referred to as the Waialua case. The issues involved in that case and history of the litigation appear from the decisions of this court in 31 Haw. 242, 348, 817; 32 Haw. 30, 67; 33 Haw. 34; from the decisions of the United States circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit in 52 F.2d 847; 93 F.2d 603; 94 F.2d 806; and from the decisions of the United States supreme court in 304 U.S. 553; U.S. Sup. Ct. (November 7, 1938). Mr. Holt died in March, 1929, and he was succeeded by the defendant, Herman V. von Holt, and on March 12, 1929, Mr. von Holt, as successor guardian of the incompetent, adopted, ratified and confirmed the contract of employment entered into with Ulrich Hite by his predecessor, Mr. Holt. On April 3, 1929, the contract of employment was amended.

See alsoSylva v. Wailuku Sugar Co., 19 Haw. 681, 688 (1909).Christian v. Waialua Agric. Co., 33 Haw. 34, 41 (1934). Klu (Acacia farnesiana ) is a branching shrub that "is a pest in pastures because of its long needle-like thorns.

Kingdom 1872) (“It has been a long and well settled principle that a purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice has a good title, although the purchaser of one who had obtained the conveyance by fraud.”) (quoting Jackson v. Walsh, 14 Johns. 407, 415 (N.Y.1817)); Keawe v. Parker, 6 Haw. 489, 496 (Haw. Kingdom 1884) (“If the defendants are bona fide purchasers, without notice of the claim of [competing claimant], they are protected, according to well settled principles and by the statutes of this Kingdom.”); Christian, by Holt, v. Waialua Agric. Co., 33 Haw. 34, 54 (Haw.Terr.1934) (“[I]f a second purchaser, for value and without notice, purchases from a first purchaser, who is charged with notice, he thereby becomes a bona fide purchaser, and is entitled to protection.”). In the bankruptcy context, federal courts have similarly interpreted the “good faith” requirement from former Bankruptcy Rule 805, which has been codified in part at 11 U.S.C. § 363(m).