The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-10-22
JURY WAIVED.
JUDD, c. j., M'CULLy, BICKERToN, AND
DOLE, J. J..

OPINION OF THE COURT BY DOLE. J.
1t does not appear from the record
how this cause has reached the Court
in Banco, but it was argued before
us under an undoubted mutual I'M
Outstanding of both sides.
The following agreed statement
OF facts and issues of law was sub
mitted by counsel of both parties.
1.-The Hilo Sugar Company is les
see of various tracts of land, contain
ing in all an area of 1888 acres under
covenant to pay taxes.
The Hilo Sugar Company returned
these lands for taxation by name at
the same rates per acre as their fee
simple lands of similar nature, viz.
Fifteen dollars ($15) per acre for
cane lands and one dollar per acre
for bush land. The Board of Tax
Appeal raised the assessment of cane
land to twenty dollars $500 per acre.
Taxes at this valuation were paid by
the Hilo Sugar Co. upon all of said
lands.
The Hilo Sugar Co. were further
assessed upon these lands the sum
of nineteen thousand one hundred
and thirteen 25100 dollars (S19, 49,
25) as the value OF their leasehold
interest in the same in addition to
the amount returned by the company,
and paid the the tax on same under
protest. The Hilo Sugar Co. made
no separate return of their leasehold
interest.
The questions agreed to be sub
mitted are:
1. Can there be legally assessed
against a tenant upon his interest an
amount greater than the established
value of similar land held in fee
simple?
2. Can assessment legally be made
against landlords interest and a
tenants interest the sum of which
would be greater than the assessable
value of the same land held in fee
3. The Hilo Sugar Company hav-
ing made no separate return Of their
leasehold interest in the above
named lands, can they maintain this
suit?"
A deposition of John Scott was
also filed by both counsel as evil
dence.
1t appears from the evidence that
the plaintiff having covenanted with
his lessons to pay the taxes that
should be payable upon the lands
under the several leases, undertook
to make returns of such taxes direct
ly to defendant, the Deputy Assessor,
which arrangement the Deputy As
SCISSOR fell in with, and looked to the
plaintiff alone, instead Of his lessons,
for the assessment returns and the
taxes of the lands in question.
This method was irregular, for a
private agreement between lessor
and lessee that the latter should pay
the taxes does not affect the liability
of the landlord to the Government.
Such an agreement is purely pri-
vate matter between the parties to
the lease, and gives the lessor claim
upon the lessee for all taxes which
he is required to pay an account of
the leased land. (Brown-Assessor VS..
Smith, No. 726 Intern. Div
The defendants position is that if
we regard the first taxes paid by the
plaintiff, as the taxes upon the land
lords interest in the land, as they
were clearly intended to be, there is
nothing to prevent further assess
ment against the tenant, the plain
tiff, for his interest in the same land
under his lease. He should have
made return of his leasehold inter
est-as he actually did in the case Of
two of the lands for which he had not
convented to pay the landlords
taxes, but not having done SO, it de-
volved upon the assessor to assess
such interest, according to the best
information within his reach" This
vas done, and there is no appeal
from such assessment.
We have, therefore, to consider
whether this Court has jurisdiction
over the cause. 1t has been the
practice of Courts TO refuse TO in
vestigate complaints based upon
the charge Of over assessment, as ap-
peals from such assessments to the
Tax Appeal Courts, are provided by
statute, except in cases OF a failure to
make any return within the time re-
quired by the statute.
But the plaintiff claims that mas
much as the taxes already paid upon
the land are assessed upon It's full
value, as if no lease existed, which
appears to be admitted by the defen-
dant, there is no value remaining
which may be assessed as the ten
ants interest. and that the assess
ment, being therefore made upon an
erroneous principle, is illegal.
1t is doubtless correct principle
of law, that the reversion and thu
leasehold interests of real estate heiC
under lease are together worth onl!
the unincumbered value of the land