Yuen v. Kimikaua

Decision Date29 September 1944
Docket NumberNo. 2437.,2437.
Citation37 Haw. 8
PartiesFRED YUEN v. JOHN KIMIKAUA, WILLIAM PUAOI, GABRIEL LANI, WM. ENOKA, JOHN Y. KAHIKINA, ALBERT WILLIAM HORNER, ROBERT PAUOLE AND DR. F. G. KRAUSS, CHAIRMAN, NOBLE N. KAUHANE, MRS. PHOEBE H. AMOY AND BRUCE R. MCBRIDE, CONSTITUTING THE HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION.
CourtHawaii Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE FIRST CIRCUIT, HON. H. E. STAFFORD, JUDGE.

Syllabus by the Court

Cash realizations by the Hawaiian Homes Commission upon choses in action assigned to it by its lessees by way of security for statutory liens created by sections 208 (6) and 216 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 in excess of the aggregate of existing liens, are held by the commission as trustee for and subject to sequestration in the creditor's suit against the assignors.

The Hawaiian Homes Commission is not immune from suit by creditors against such assignors designed to reach such excess.

P. A. Lee for petitionerappellant.

W. D. Ackerman, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, for respondentappellee Hawaiian Homes Commission.

KEMP, C. J., PETERS AND LE BARON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY PETERS, J.

This is a creditor's bill to enforce the payment of debts of the lessees of the Hawaiian Homes Commission out of the net proceeds of sales of pineapples accrued and to accrue to the debtor lessees and assigned by them to the commission.

It appears from the allegations of the bill of complaint that the lessees cultivated the land leased to them by the commission to pineapples; that for the purpose of procuring financial aid, labor and equipment for the cultivation of their lands they had entered into planting contracts with pineapple canneries under the terms of which they agreed to plant the premises leased to them by the commission in whole or in part in pineapples and to sell to the pineapple canneries all pineapples to be cultivated and harvested by them thereon, the proceeds of sale remaining after deductions by the canneries of all advances and costs of physical assistance to be paid by the canneries to debtor lessees; that the debtor lessees have assigned all the net proceeds of sale of pineapples accrued and to accrue to them during the respective terms of the contracts to the commission; that the commission “has now in its possession or will acquire from time to time sums of money due and owing to said homesteaders [debtor lessees] over and above the amount owing to said commission,” and it is these respective interests of the debtor lessees in the net proceeds of sales accrued and to accrue to them under their planting contracts that the petitioners seek to reach. The bill of complaint does not disclose the dates of the respective contracts between the debtor lessees and the pineapple canneries nor the terms or provisions thereof. Nor were any of said contracts offered or received in evidence. Hence we are not advised of their duration nor of the crops present or prospective that were or are subject thereto. Sufficient appears, however, from the bill construed in the light of facts of which we may take judicial notice to infer that the contracts between the debtor lessees and the pineapple canneries are referable at least to one plant and successive ratoon crops, the former of which has been or will be planted pursuant to contract.

The debtor lessees who were made parties respondent defaulted. The members of the commission alone appear. By its answer the commission put in issue all the material allegations of the complaint and a hearing was had upon the bill and answer of the commission. Although the record is not clear upon the subject the commission apparently finally conceded the truth of the material allegations of the bill and contended (1) that a creditor's bill did not lie and (2) that if it did, the members of the commission as public officers of the Territory were immune from suit. The trial judge sustained both of the contentions of the commission and dismissed the bill. Petitioners appealed.

The Hawaiian Homes Commission is the creature of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920.1 The validity of the contracts between the debtor lessees and the pineapple companies and of the assignments by the debtor lessees of their respective interests in the net proceeds of sales accrued and to accrue to them thereunder is conceded by the attorney general.

In our opinion a creditor's bill lies to subject the net proceeds of sales of pineapples by the debtor lessees under their contracts with the pineapple canneries over and above the existing statutory liens now in the possession of the commission to the payment of the judgments of the petitioner against the debtor lessees. As to the jurisdiction of equity in a creditor's bill to subject any net proceeds of sales remaining in the possession of the canneries or to any proceeds to accrue from future sales to the satisfaction of petitioner's claim, we express no opinion. The canneries with which the debtor lessees had contracts of sale of pineapples were not made parties nor has the petitioner presented or discussed the remedy, if any he has, or may have, in relation thereto. The result of our conclusions being to reverse the decree below and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, the questions of the extent to which a creditor's suit may operate upon these types of choses in action and whether the contracting canneries are necessary parties are more properly presented to and determined by the trial judge upon remand.

The Hawaiian Homes Commission, at the time of the execution of the respective assignments by the debtor lessees to it possessed the implied power to accept the same by way of security for statutory liens created by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. While the Act neither as originally enacted nor as substantially amended prior to suit contains any provision expressly conferring upon the commission the power to accept assignments of choses in action, from the general purposes and objects of the Act...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Yuen v. Hawaiian Homes Commission
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • 29 September 1944
    ...37 Haw. 8 FRED YUEN v. JOHN KIMIKAUA, WILLIAM PUAOI, GABRIEL LANI, WM. ENOKA, JOHN Y. KAHIKINA, ALBERT WILLIAM HORNER, ROBERT PAUOLE AND DR. F. G. KRAUSS, CHAIRMAN, NOBLE N. KAUHANE, MRS. PHOEBE H. AMOY AND BRUCE R. MCBRIDE, CONSTITUTING THE HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION. No. 2437.Supreme Court......

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