The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-10-28

nothing to prevent a further assess
ment against the tenant, the plain
tiff, for his interest in the same lanC
under his lease. He should have
made a 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
was 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 APP
peals from such assessments to the
Tax Appeal Courts, are provided by
statute, except in cases of 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 a correct principle
of law, that the reversion and the
leasehold interests of real estate held
under lease are together worth only
the unincumbered value of the land.
There may be in certain circum-
stances exceptions to this rule, but
it must be generally regarded as Civ
ing the true status of the mutual re-
lations of such interests.
In the matter before us the rever
sion was assessed to the full value
which had been fixed by the Tax APP
peal Court as the assessable value of
such lands in the district, which as
sessment the plaintiff submitted to.
This consumed the whole value of
the land in question and left no sur
plus value to be assessed on account
of leasehold interests there. But
the Deputy Assessor did assess such
interest and for large amount, i. g.,
S14.89 an acre for both cane land
and bush land. AS we do not know
the comparative areas of the cane
land and bush land, we cannot say
whether this assessment was more or
less than the assessment on the re-
version, which was 500 an acre for
cane land and one dollar an acre for
bush land, but it is safe to say that
the leasehold interest was assessed
close up to the assessment on the
reversion. This was clearly wrong
and by it the Government has re-
ceived nearly double the taxes it was
entitled to from the land in question.
1t is not for us to review the iudg
ment of the Assessor in estimating
values, but we may interfere where
the assessment is illegal, and we
think the one submitted to us is so
for the reasons we have given, and
in brief, not so much because the as
sessment upon the leasehold inter
est was excessive, as because it was
made at all, after the value of the
land had been fully assessed against
the reversion.
The fact that the plaintiff made no
returns of its leasehold interest is no
bar to this suit, the assessment com.
planned of being illegal. phelps VS..
Thurston, At Conn. 1856, State vs..
Ross, % N. j. L. 521, State VS..
Quaife, id. SO and State vs.. Metz 81
id. 1861.
It will be seen that in the forego-
ing opinion we have substantially an
swered the questions submitted so
far as they are applicable to this
cause, and we need not refer to them
further.
Let judgment be entered for the
plaintiff for $191.13, with interest
from December 14th, 1887, the date
of the payment of taxes under pro
test.
F. M. Hatch for plaintiff; A. P.
Peterson, Attorney General, for de-
PENDANT.