Territory Hawai`i v. Hawaiian Dredging Co.
| Decision Date | 10 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 4003.,4003. |
| Citation | 42 Haw. 627 |
| Parties | TERRITORY OF HAWAII, BY BEN E. NUTTER, ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, v. HAWAIIAN DREDGING COMPANY, LIMITED, AN HAWAIIAN CORPORATION; ET AL. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAPPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT FIRST CIRCUIT, HON. ALBERT M. FELIX, JUDGE.
Syllabus by the Court
An eminent domain proceeding may be abandoned at any time before reaching final judgment. Such abandonment may be partial.
Clinton R. Ashford, Special Deputy Attorney General ( Richard K. Sharpless, Attorney General, and David L. Mui, Deputy Attorney General, on the opening brief; Herbert Y. C. Choy, Attorney General, and David L. Mui, Deputy Attorney General, on the reply brief) for the Territory, petitioner-appellant.
Arthur K. Trask (also on the brief) for Victor S. K. Houston, et al., respondents-appellees.
John E. Desha III and William K. Amona for Komaye Oishi, et al., intervenors-appellees; filed no brief and were not present.
Wallace S. Fujiyama for Jue Anami, et al., defendants-appellees; filed no brief and was not present.
Delbert E. Metzger for David K. Kakalia, intervenor-appellee; filed no brief, was present but did not argue.
Anderson, Wrenn & Jenks ( Jack P. Russell) for Hawaiian Dredging Company, Limited, respondent-appellee; filed no brief, was present but did not argue.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the Territory of Hawaii from an order of the circuit judge denying its motion for leave to amend its petition in an eminent domain proceeding. The petition had been amended twice previously. Under the petition, as it stood after the second amendment, the Territory sought to condemn “all of the right, title and interest of the respondents herein pertaining to or within the area * * * described and designated as the sea fishery of Mokauea,” for the Keehi Lagoon seaplane harbor project. Respondents were Hawaiian Dredging Company, Limited, and other persons claiming rights and interests in such sea fishery. After the filing of the second amended petition, the Secretary of War established a pierhead and bulkhead line, which constituted authority for use by abutting owners of any area lying between such line and private lands on the shore. That meant that a portion of the area sought to be condemned, comprising 1.634 acres and lying between the pierhead and bulkhead line and the abutting land owned by Hawaiian Dredging Company, Limited, was no longer necessary for the project and would be lawfully available for occupancy and use by the company. Since the search of title indicated that the company was the valid claimant to the fishery, the Territory entered into a compromise settlement with the company under R. L. H. 1945, §§ 4534-4535, whereby the company quitclaimed to the Territory all of its rights to the submerged lands, as well as the fishing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hawaiian Dredging Co.
...all of the rights of that company in the remaining area under condemnation, whatever those rights might be. See, Territory v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., 42 Haw. 627. The case, then in the nature of an action to quiet title, remained at issue between the Territory (which shortly thereafter attai......
-
Helela v. State
...proceedings was unnecessary or not for a public use. Territory of Hawaii by Choy v. Damon, 44 Haw. 557, 356 P.2d 386 and Territory v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., 42 Haw. 627, make it clear that the sovereign is permitted to discontinue a condemnation action in whole or in part (and be held accou......