Akai v. Lewis, 2598.
| Decision Date | 08 July 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 2598.,2598. |
| Citation | 37 Haw. 374 |
| Parties | ELIZABETH K. AKAI v. ANNIE K. LEWIS. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE FIRST CIRCUIT, HON. A. M. CRISTY, JUDGE.
Syllabus by the Court
Statutes in derogation of the common law will be strictly construed and under the rule of strict construction it is not to be presumed that the lawmakers intended to abrogate or modify a rule any further than that which is expressly declared or clearly indicated.
In the interpretation of a statute or ordinance the lawmaking body's own construction of its language by means of definitions of the terms employed supersedes the commonly accepted, dictionary, or judicial definition.
The fact that the trial judge based his conclusion on reasons different from those on which we reach the same conclusion does not render his conclusion erroneous.
C. B. Dwight for respondent–appellant.
A. K. Trask for petitioner–appellee.
Annie K. Lewis is the owner of lots 3 and 4 in block “L” of the Kapahulu Tract (file plan 55 in the office of the registrar of conveyances) situated in the City of Honolulu. Each of said lots contains an area of 5045 square feet. Lot 4 is a corner lot with 50.45 foot frontage on 4th Avenue and 100 foot frontage on Olu Street. Lot 3 adjoins lot 4 with 50.45 foot frontage on 4th Avenue and a depth of 100 feet. Olu Street is 40 feet wide and 4th Avenue is 30 feet wide. Both streets were provided for in file plan 55 and were constructed years ago.
Exhibit “D” contains a blue print of lots 3 and 4 with the existing buildings, which consist of three dwellings and two garages. The blue print also shows a line which divides the area covered by lots 3 and 4 into two parcels, each having an area of 5045 square feet with a frontage of 50 feet on Olu Street and a depth of 100.90 feet. This dividing line leaves one garage on each of the parcels, two of the dwellings on one parcel, and one dwelling on the other, and divides the area covered by lots 3 and 4 into two parcels of 5045 square feet each as did lots 3 and 4. Two of the dwellings are partly on both lots 3 and 4, whereas each is wholly within one of the parcels formed by the new dividing line.
On March 22, 1945, Mrs. Lewis entered into an agreement with Elizabeth K. Akai to sell to Mrs. Akai the parcel which fronts on Olu Street containing the two dwellings and one garage for $6,000 and accepted from Mrs. Akai $50 and issued a receipt therefor reciting, “Option on house & lot on 3204 Olu Street.”
However, Mrs. Lewis refused to execute a deed of sale when called upon to do so and Mrs. Akai brought suit against Mrs. Lewis to compel specific performance, alleging the agreement to sell and that the price agreed upon was $6,000 cash which she tendered to Mrs. Lewis. Mrs. Lewis in her answer admitted that she agreed to sell to petitioner the land described in the petition for $6,000 but alleged that her agreement was “on condition that the respondent recover the possession of an apartment rented by the respondent to third persons, which apartment was situated in the premises adjoining the property described in the complaint and did accept the sum of FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00) on account of said promise to convey as aforesaid.” The petitioner, by replication, denied that the agreement to sell to her was conditional and the court so decided.
After the decision on November 29, 1944, ordering specific performance respondent, on December 20, 1944, moved to reopen the case “for the purpose of adducing further evidence * * * to the effect that this land described in the petition is a subdivision of a larger tract; that the subdivision of the larger tract never was and never has been approved by the City Planning Commission. And I also want to offer in evidence the revised ordinance of the City and County of Honolulu, being Section 152 of the revised ordinance, and also the section of the revised ordinance which provides the penalty. * * *
“If the Court allows the motion to reopen for the purpose of adducing this testimony I would also like to amend the answer by adding a new paragraph, substantially to the effect that the land described in the petition is a subdivision of a larger tract, which subdivision has not and never has been approved by the planning commission of the City and County of Honolulu, and that the offer of the petitioner to sell and the contract of sale is illegal, null, and void, and of no effect.”
It does not appear that respondent actually amended her answer, as suggested, or otherwise. However, after a discussion by counsel and court, counsel stipulated the facts, of which the following is the substance:
1. That the land in question is not covered by the master plan adopted by the planning commission of the City and County of Honolulu;
2. That the land described in the petition is a portion of a larger tract in the City of Honolulu;
3. That the proposed subdivision of the larger tract has not been approved by the planning commission of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gold Coast Neighborhood Ass'n v. State
...must be strictly construed." Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., Inc., 66 Haw. at 611, 671 P.2d at 449 (emphasis added); see also Akai v. Lewis, 37 Haw. 374, 378 (Haw. Terr. 1946) ("It is also well settled that under the rule of strict construction it is not to be presumed that the lawmakers intended ......
-
Douglass v. Pflueger Hawaii, Inc.
...(noting the continuing applicability of the maxim that "statutes abrogating common law rights must be strictly construed"); Akai v. Lewis, 37 Haw. 374, 377 (1946) (concluding that an ordinance in derogation of the common law will be strictly construed and positing that "under the rule of st......
-
Mossman v. Hawaiian Trust Co.
...from those given by the trial court. See Calaca v. Caldeira, 13 Haw. 214; Re Application Kaimuki Land Co., 35 Haw. 254; Akai v. Lewis, 37 Haw. 374, 379. The mandate will show that the case is remanded for perfecting of the record so as to show no absence of indispensable parties, otherwise ......
-
Burns Intern. Sec. Services, Inc. v. Department of Transp.
...are in derogation of common law must be strictly construed. State v. Taylor, 49 Haw. 624, 628, 425 P.2d 1014, 1018 (1967); Akai v. Lewis, 37 Haw. 374, 379 (1946). Where it does not appear there was legislative purpose in superseding the common law, the common law will be followed. State v. ......