Joseph Carter v. Territory of Hawaii, No. 144

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHolmes
Citation26 S.Ct. 248,50 L.Ed. 470,200 U.S. 255
Decision Date08 January 1906
Docket NumberNo. 144
PartiesJOSEPH O. CARTER, William F. Allen, William O. Smith, Samuel M. Damon, and Alfred W. Carter, Trustees under the Will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Deceased, Plffs. in Err. , v. TERRITORY OF HAWAII

200 U.S. 255
26 S.Ct. 248
50 L.Ed. 470
JOSEPH O. CARTER, William F. Allen, William O. Smith, Samuel M. Damon, and Alfred W. Carter, Trustees under the Will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Deceased, Plffs. in Err.,

v.

TERRITORY OF HAWAII.

No. 144.
Argued and submitted December 13, 1905.
Decided January 8, 1906.

Messrs. Sidney M. Ballon, Benj. L. Marx, and J. J. Darlington for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Emil C. Peters and

Page 256

Fred W. Milverton for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a proceeding to establish the plaintiffs' rights to a several fishery of the kind described in Damon v. Hawaii, 194 U. S. 154, 48 L. ed. 916, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617, and comes here under the same circumstances as that case did. The fishery in question is a sea fishery within the reef in Waialae Iki, island of Oahu, and is claimed by metes and bounds in the complaint. The plaintiffs are owners of the adjacent land under a royal patent following upon an award of the Land Commission, and the only difference between this case and the former one is that in this, the fishery is not described in the royal patent, and that, apart from the question of prescription, upon which we shall say nothing, the plaintiffs have to rely upon the statutes alone. They offered evidence at the trial that, before the action of the King in 1839, those under whom the plaintiffs claim title had enjoyed, from time immemorial, rights similar to those set out in the statutes, and also that they had been in continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the konohiki right for sixty years. They offered, in short, to prove that their predecessor in title was within the statutes, and therefore owned the fishery, it not being disputed that if he did, the plaintiffs own it now. The judge rejected the evidence, and entered judgment for the defendant, and, on exceptions, this judgment and that in Damon v. Hawaii were sustained at the same time, in one opinion, by the supreme court. 14 Haw. 465.

We deem it unnecessary to repeat the ground of our intimation in the former case, that the statutes there referred to created vested rights. We simply repeat that, in our opinion, such was their effect. The fact that they neither identified the specific grantees nor established the boundaries is immaterial when their purport as a grant or confirmation is decided. It is enough that they afforded the means of identification, and that presumably the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • In re Faxon Bishop, No. 2106.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • September 6, 1940
    ...239; In re Title of Pa Pelekane, 21 Haw. 175, 186. 75. See Akeni v. Wong Ka Mau, 5 Haw. 91, 93, cited and applied in Carter v. Hawaii, 200 U. S. 255, 257;Judd v. Kuanalewa, 6 Haw. 329, 333. 76. Second Act Kamehameha III, pt. 1, c. VII, art. IV, § VII. 77.Akeni v. Wong Ka Mau, 5 Haw. 91;Cart......
  • State v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., Nos. 4277
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • November 27, 1964
    ...supra, 35 Haw. 608, 655-656) the commission regularly declined to exercise even that jurisdiction. See, Carter v. Territory of Hawaii, 200 U.S. 255, 26 S.Ct. 248, 50 L.Ed. The evidence conclusively demonstrated that awards were not delivered, and clear title was not conveyed, until the cost......
  • United States v. Kaiser Aetna, Civ. No. 73-3864.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • February 6, 1976
    ...similar Hawaiian property rights in sea fisheries. See Damon v. Hawaii, 194 U.S. 154, 24 S.Ct. 617, 48 L.Ed. 916 (1904); Carter v. Hawaii, 200 U.S. 255, 26 S.Ct. 248, 50 L.Ed. 470 (1906). Justice Holmes delivered both opinions; in Damon the learned jurist A right of this sort is somewhat di......
  • In re Lincoln Loy Mccandless for Registration of Title to Land in the Dist. of Waianae, No. 2204.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • March 5, 1937
    ...S. 1, and point out that it has been a party to suits that have been before this court. Damon v. Hawaii, 194 U. S. 154; Carter v. Hawaii, 200 U. S. 255. The Territory, of course, could waive its exemption, Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, and it took no objection to the proceedings in the ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • In re Faxon Bishop, No. 2106.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • September 6, 1940
    ...239; In re Title of Pa Pelekane, 21 Haw. 175, 186. 75. See Akeni v. Wong Ka Mau, 5 Haw. 91, 93, cited and applied in Carter v. Hawaii, 200 U. S. 255, 257;Judd v. Kuanalewa, 6 Haw. 329, 333. 76. Second Act Kamehameha III, pt. 1, c. VII, art. IV, § VII. 77.Akeni v. Wong Ka Mau, 5 Haw. 91;Cart......
  • State v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., Nos. 4277
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • November 27, 1964
    ...supra, 35 Haw. 608, 655-656) the commission regularly declined to exercise even that jurisdiction. See, Carter v. Territory of Hawaii, 200 U.S. 255, 26 S.Ct. 248, 50 L.Ed. The evidence conclusively demonstrated that awards were not delivered, and clear title was not conveyed, until the cost......
  • United States v. Kaiser Aetna, Civ. No. 73-3864.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • February 6, 1976
    ...similar Hawaiian property rights in sea fisheries. See Damon v. Hawaii, 194 U.S. 154, 24 S.Ct. 617, 48 L.Ed. 916 (1904); Carter v. Hawaii, 200 U.S. 255, 26 S.Ct. 248, 50 L.Ed. 470 (1906). Justice Holmes delivered both opinions; in Damon the learned jurist A right of this sort is somewhat di......
  • In re Lincoln Loy Mccandless for Registration of Title to Land in the Dist. of Waianae, No. 2204.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • March 5, 1937
    ...S. 1, and point out that it has been a party to suits that have been before this court. Damon v. Hawaii, 194 U. S. 154; Carter v. Hawaii, 200 U. S. 255. The Territory, of course, could waive its exemption, Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, and it took no objection to the proceedings in the ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT