The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1877-10-27

Serene E. Bishop and Mrs. C. C. ArSstrong y. chas. n.
Judd, Assessor Of TGres for Honolulu, 1877.
Before Judd and McCHHy, H.
Opinion Of the Court rendered by McCULLY, J.
The above title embodies two separate submissions argued
by The TSme counsel 11ss = the same time, respectively as follows,
District Of Honolulu, which estate is subject TO mortgage for
"2. The plaintiff Is also the holder Of three shares 10 the
capital stock Of the Haiku Plantation q corporation carrying
such shares, fer the purposes Of this case, being taken 20 be
as. The plaintiff has made a return to the defendant as
such Tax Assessor, and claims to be entitled to deduct from
his taxable real or personal estate the amount Of the said mort
-. The plaintiff also claims that he is not liable to be as
ku Plantation, inaa@qch that the capital stock Of the Com
as. The defendant, on the contrary. insists that he IL entitled
real estate, and refuses to allow the plaintiff to deduct from
the value Of the said real estate the amount Of the said mort,
has assessed the plaintiff for the full value Of his said shares in
Honolulu, where the plaintiff resides.
"s. The questions submitted to the said justices arei l.
property. real or personal, the said mortgage dsbI. 2. Whether
the plaintiff is chaIgeabie with taxes upon his said shares Of
Judgment 70 be entered for the plaintiff or defendant ac-
cording to the decision Of the Court upon these issues"
al. The plaintiff armstrong; has loaned the sum Of $3.50 to
The estate Of Kaiiuli, and has taken a mortgage ever certain
note as security, which real estate Is assessed, independent q
the mortgage. in the district where situate;
az. Pursuant to the requirements Of the law, the plaintiff
has made a return to the defendant a. such Tax Assessor as
properly, she claims to deduct therefrOm the amount due on
the SAID note and mortgage.
"a. The defendant, on the contrary, insists that under the
existing Law, be Is entitled to assess, and has assessed the
plaintiff with the said debt as being a debt secured by a pro-
missofy note.
"The question for the opinion Of the justices Is, Whether
the plaintiff Is properly assessed for the amount Of The said
mortgage debt the property being already asseBed In the dis
tTct where situate"
Before proceeding 70 consider the Issues thus submitted We
think IL proper 70 express our doubts whether such cases come
within the purView Of the statute Of submissions. That statute
provides for the submission 20 the justices Of the Supreme
Court on agreed statement Of a question Of difference which
might become The subject Of a civil action in the Supreme Court
But IL 10 not manifest what civil action could be brought
against the Assessor OF Taxes. A special remedy, which IA
exclusive (see Widemann v. Minister Of Finance, Sd Haw
Rep. p. 1891, by appeal 70 the Tax Appeal Board, has beer
provided for parties who have been wrongly assessed. These
plaintiffs do not resort to that remedy, because they do not
claim that the Assessors valuation has been too high, nor thai
he has not followed the law In its apparent meaning, They
/ come 70 the Supreme Court with the argument that the tar
law 10 unconsttufional, q matter which could not be raised be
fore the Tax Board, nor be brought from that Board 10 th'
Court, no appeal therefrom being provided.
| II the Assessor 10 a judicial onioer, and acted Judicialy and
with Jurisdiction over the persons and property Of the plain
tihs, then as held In swit v. City Of Poughkeepsie, N. ", 81
Court Of Appeals, Sill, he IL entitled 70 the protection accorded
70 all tribunals and parties thus acting. We are aware tha
there are authorities supporting the contrary doctrine, th