Kahaulelio v. Ihihi

• Decision Date: 17 March 1919
• Docket Number: No. 1110.,1110.
• Citation: 24 Haw. 685
• Parties: DAVID K. KAHAULELIO, PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. BEKE IHIHI AND KIN CHOY, DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

24 Haw. 685

DAVID K. KAHAULELIO, PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN ERROR,

v.BEKE IHIHI AND KIN CHOY, DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR.

No. 1110.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Filed December 19, 1918.

Decided March 17, 1919.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREPETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR AND SUPERSEDEAS RETURNABLE TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

Syllabus by the Court

Appeal and Error-Application for writ of error from circuit court of appeals-value of matter in dispute-burden of proof.

A writ of error from a final judgment of the supreme court of Hawaii may be had and prosecuted in the United States circuit court of appeals wherein the amount involved, exclusive of costs, exceeds the value of $5000. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in error where the record is silent as to the value of the subject-matter in dispute to establish that it is of jurisdictional value.

BEFORE COKE, C. J., AT CHAMBERS.

MEMORANDUM OPINION.

Judgment in this cause was rendered in favor of plaintiff-defendant in error, and the defendant-plaintiff in error, Beke Ihihi, has applied to me for the allowance of a writ of error from the United States circuit court of appeals of the ninth circuit. The plaintiff-defendant in error, Kahaulelio, by his attorney, J. Lightfoot, Esq., has interposed an objection to the issuance of the writ on the ground that the amount involved does not exceed the sum of $5000 as required by section 1126A, Vol. 2, U. S. Comp. Stat.

By leave, first granted, both parties have submitted affidavits upon the question of the value of the property involved. In this I have been guided largely by the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Enriquez v. Enriquez, 222 U. S. 127; Red River Cattle Co. v. Needham, 137 U. S. 632, and Wilson v. Blair, 119 U. S. 387. In the last case the court said: “Our jurisdiction in this case depends on the value of the matter in dispute. Final judgment was entered in the action May 24, 1884. At that time there was nothing in the record to show the value. On the 16th of September, 1884, on motion, leave was given to the defendant in the court below to file affidavits of value that day and the plaintiff to file counter-affidavits in twenty days. This was good practice and if oftener adopted would save trouble to parties and to us.” The court also lays down the rule in the Wilson-Blair case that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in error, where the record is silent as to the value of the subject-matter in dispute, to establish that it is of jurisdictional value. So in the present case the record is silent as to the value of the property in dispute, except, however, it does appear in the record that the property was at the time of the institution of the action leased to one Kin Choy at an annual rental of $266, the lessee to pay all taxes, rates and assessments for water, sewerage and municipal charges, the lessor reserving to herself the fruit production from four breadfruit trees growing upon the...