Joseph Carter v. Territory of Hawaii
| Decision Date | 08 January 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 144,144 |
| Citation | 26 S.Ct. 248,50 L.Ed. 470,200 U.S. 255 |
| Parties | 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 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Sidney M. Ballon, Benj. L. Marx, and J. J. Darlington for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Emil C. Peters and
Fred W. Milverton for defendant in error.
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 boundaries can be fixed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Faxon Bishop
...4 Haw. 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. ......
-
Bishop v. Mahiko
...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......
-
United States v. Kaiser Aetna
...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 different from thos......
-
State v. Hawaiian Dredging Co.
...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. 470. The evidence conclusively demonstrated that awards were not delivered, and clear title was not conveyed, until the......