Territory Hawai`i v. City of Elizabeth, 2843.
| Decision Date | 10 September 1952 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2843.,2843. |
| Citation | 39 Haw. 514 |
| Parties | TERRITORY OF HAWAII, BY WALTER D. ACKERMAN, JR., ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL, v. ALA MOANA GARDENS, LIMITED, BANK OF HAWAII, BISHOP NATIONAL BANK OF HAWAII AT HONOLULU, BISHOP TRUST COMPANY, LIMITED, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, THE HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED, HAWAIIAN TRUST COMPANY, LIMITED, INSURANCE FACTORS, LIMITED, KAPIOLANI DRIVE INN, LIMITED, THE LIBERTY BANK OF HONOLULU, MUTUAL TELEPHONE COMPANY, PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, ROYAL CREST APARTMENTS, LIMITED, THE THOM CO., LTD., H. Y. YOUNG, LIMITED, ISAAC AOKI, MAE TAKUMI AOKI, HOOK LAN AU, MERTON BELCHER, PANG YET CHONG, PEI HUA CHAO, MAY LEE CHAO, MUESEL CHUN, NAM YEE CHUN, HAROLD BUTT QUON CHUN, IRENE HEONG LEONG CHUN, EUNICE DERRY COMSTOCK, ANNIE A. CLARK, DOO WOOK CHOY, HELEN NAHM CHOY, DAVID OAK SOO CHOY, MARY CHUNG AI CHOY, VIOLET L. COOK, KOW YOU COOK, HATTIE AH COOK, ALFRED KWAI DOON CHING, EDITH TOM CHING, HENRY CHUN-HOON, SAI CHOW DOO, D. B. DARLING, TED KUROKU FUJIYOSHI, YUKIE FUJIYOSHI, JOSEPH WALTER FERREIRO, BETSY FERREIRO, LOUIS LYMAN GOWANS, HELEN TAYLOR GOWANS, KENNETH GETZEMEYER, WINIFRED GETZEMEYER, HAROLD TORAO HAMASAKI, JANE HAMASAKI, YOSHIO HANAO, MARY YOSHIKO HAMASAKI, SATOYO HAMASAKI, YASUICHI HAMASAKI, YOSHIO HANO, MARY YOSHIKO HOSOI, TADASHI HOSOI, ROSALINE KAM YEN WONG HEE, AKIYOSHI HAYASHIDA, BERNICE HAMAMURA HAYASHIDA, DAN DAISAKU HIRAHARA, KUM YEE HIRAHARA, PHILIP WOOWON HONG, ROSE KIM HONG, GEORGE IWASAKI, NAKA IWASAKI, ERNEST TSUYOSHI IWANAGA, CHITOSE IWANAGA, JACOB YOU ING, HENRY INN, DUKE P. KAHANAMOKU, ESTELLE KAN KONG, DORA CHONG AI LEE KONG, YOSHIHARU KONDO, MISAO KONDO, DAVID KANONO KALAUOKALANI, RICHARD KAWEHI KALAUOKALANI, RAYMOND FAH KONG, HAIG KEOLA KALAUOKALANI, GEORGE EICHI KITASHIRO, JANICE YOSHIKO KITASHIRO, HARRY BATES LEN, EDWARD LUM LAU, MARGARET CHOY KYAU LAU, AH CHIN LUM, BEATRICE YOUNG LUM, ROSE KAM HOONG WONG LUM, HELEN LAU LUM, HENRY KAM FOOK LAM, JOSEPH AIONA LOO, SARAH HONG LOO, VICTORINO LA MADRID, SR., JOHN IWAO MAMIYA, ELLA TOMOE MAMIYA, WILFRED TAKEO MINATOYA, GERTRUDE UEMYO MINATOYA, LARRY MEDEIROS, TAKEO MORISHIGE, NORIKO MORISHIGE, ROBERT MATSUO MORISHIGE, MARY ELLEN KEALOHAPAUOLE PAOA CLARKE, ELAINE KIMIE MORISHIGE, ORISON OI SUN PANG, ESTHER LEE PANG, INEZ SOON KONG PAI, HEIRS OF MALCOLM H. PAOA, JUANITA ELLEN CLARKE PAOA, HENRY K. PAOA, MAILE HELEN ZOLLER PAOA, FREDERICK H. PAOA, MADELYN BARTO PAOA, GILBERT H. PAOA, EDNA KUULEI ALDEN PAOA, MELVIN E. L. PAOA, HELEN K. STERLING, RUDDY FAH TONGG, MASAYUKI TOKIOKA, SIK KUM TSUI, EVELYN ING TSUI, HENRY EN SUE TYAU, ROSE CHAI SIM TYAU, ERNEST YEN YEE TOM, SAMUEL MASAO UYEHARA, MIYOKO UYEHARA, MASAJI UYEHARA, SHIZUKO UYEHARA, FATHER H. VALENTIN, KELIIHOALANI PAOA VIERRA, HENRY AWA WONG, CHOCK TONG WONG, BOW SUN WONG, QUON MOI CHING WONG, RICHARD QUAN YAU WONG, ESTHER AU WONG, AH GUN WONG, LILY WONG, KELVIN ENCHOW WONG, DANIEL BENJAMIN WONG, ROBERT HEEN WONG, ANNA AU WONG, UMEMATSU WATADA, YASU NAKAO WATADA, WATARU WATANABE, VIOLET TAKIKO WATANABE, TOSHIO YASUMICHI, KAZUYO YASUMICHI, KEM YOUNG, CHANG LIN YEE YOUNG, ALBERT LOOK YI YEE, YET LAN LEN YEE, RILEY LOOK BUN KEE YEE, ELIZABETH SAU WUN CHANG YEE, LUM CHOY YEE, DOROTHY TAM YEE, DONALD LOOK YEN YEE, KALFRED LOOK KEE YEE, THELMA KWAI LIN FONG YEE, HEIRS OF QUON MOO YEE, DAVID CHINSURK YOUTH, RUTH BUCHUN YOUTH, TAKEO YOSHIKAWA, OR THE HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS OF THE ABOVE LISTED DEFENDANTS, JOHN DOE 1 TO JOHN DOE 100, INCLUSIVE, MARY ROE 1 TO MARY ROE 100, INCLUSIVE, DOE CORPORATION 1 TO DOE CORPORATION 100, INCLUSIVE, WHOSE NAMES ARE UNKNOWN, TOGETHER WITH ANY OTHER PERSONS, COMPANIES, AND CORPORATIONS, HEREIN, HAVING OR CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, ESTATE, LIEN, ENCUMBRANCE INTO OR UPON THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THE PETITION HEREIN AS UNKNOWN OWNERS. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT FIRST CIRCUIT, HON. C. H. BUCK, JUDGE.
Syllabus by the Court
The recording of a map by the city planning commission of a system of highways proposed to be established by subsequent proceedings of condemnation does not deprive the owner nor in any way restrict the use and improvement of such lands before the commencement of proceedings for condemnation nor lessen the compensation that would be awarded had such lands never been designated as a street by the planning commission.
City authorities are without any right to dedicate lands for street purposes that belong to others, but where certain lots of a subdivision have voluntarily been set aside by the owners as streets, maps thereof have been registered in the land court, lots sold according to such street plans and the plans have been adopted by the city planning commission as coming under the master plan, such lands are dedicated as streets though there may be delay in the opening and improvement thereof.
Where a fee is subject to an easement for highway purposes and the fee is taken for a street, the market value to which the owner is entitled is the value of the fee less the damage caused by the easement.
J. J. Uehara (also on the briefs) for plaintiffs in error.
H. Edmondson, Special Deputy Attorney General (also on the brief), for defendant in error.
The Territory instituted proceedings in eminent domain to condemn for a public highway certain land owned by the defendants situated in Waikiki, on Kalakaua avenue, Honolulu, containing an area of 35,933 square feet; a building used as a restaurant was situated thereon. The land was part of a land-court subdivision covered by owner's certificate of title registered in the office of the land court. The lots owned by defendants had been set aside for road purposes by a voluntary subdivision of the former owners of the land and registered in the land court. The land-court subdivision maps dated January 16, 1941 and December 1, 1941, respectively, show the lots owned by defendants as a roadway and proposed street. The master plan adopted September 17, 1942, after notice to the owners and lessees, approved the street layout.
The defendants purchased this land in 1946 for the price of $35,000; this included a building thereon valued by the defendants at $28,000. The only issue at the hearing was as to the amount to be paid as just compensation and damages for the taking of the property; the witnesses for the Territory testified that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Housing Finance and Development Corp. v. Ferguson
...actions have decided the sole issue of the fair market value of the condemned property. See, e.g., Territory v. Ala Moana Gardens, Ltd., 39 Haw. 514, 518 (1952) (noting that the only issue before the jury was the value of the property); State v. Heirs of Halemano Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 112, 3......
-
Wemple v. Dahman
...an immediate public dedication of the private roadway; the ICA based its ruling on this court's decision in Territory v. Ala Moana Gardens, Ltd., 39 Haw. 514, 520-51 (1952), in which this court cited with approval Morrow v. Richardson, 278 Ky. 233, 128 S.W.2d 560, 562 (1939) (holding that a......
-
Wemple ex rel. Dang v. Dahman
...the Hawai`i Supreme Court has recognized the common law dedication of private roads for valuation purposes. In Territory v. Ala Moana Gardens, Ltd., 39 Haw. 514 (1952), reh'g denied, 39 Haw. 655 (1952), the supreme court held that it is well settled that the sale of lots based on maps and p......
-
Neary v. Martin
...public.' (Emphasis added) City and County of Honolulu v. Boulevard Properties, 55 Haw. 305, 306, 517 P.2d 779, 780 (1973); Territory v. Ala Moana Gardens, 39 Haw. 514, reh. den. 39 Haw. 655 (1952); In re Land Title of Yamaguchi, 39 Haw. 608, 615 (1952); Paterson v. Rush, 34 Haw. 881, 889-89......