The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-05-27

JUDD, C. j., M'CULLY j., BICKERToN, j.,
DOLE, j., ABSENT.
An estate having been sold on the 21st day
of September with covenant against
membranes, and with no express
agreement concerning the payment of
the taxes.
HELD, that the taxes became fixed charge
against the owner of the property on
the first of July preceding, although
the valuation of the property had not
then been determined by the assessor;
Held, that when case has been tried by a
justice of the Court with jury waived
the Court in banco will not on a bill of
exceptions review his findings of facts,
otherwise than it would the verdict of
the jury.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY M'CULLY, J.
The case, assumpsit, was heard by
Chief Justice Judd, sitting with jury
waived. He found in favor of the
plaintiff for certain amount under
his claims The defendant excerpts
to the findings in the fact and law,
by the Justice hearing the case.
The exception to the finding that
the defendant should pay the taxes
involves question of law which we
will examine first. The language of
the Court upon this item of claim is
this: 81 think the defendant should
pay the taxes advanced by the plain
tiff. The taxes were assessed as of
the LIST of July, but they were not
payable until the 18th of November,
about two months after the sale.
Taxes are an annual charge upon
property by virtue of law and they
should be paid by the defendant as
the owner of the property on the
same principle that he must pay the
annual rents accruing after the sale"
The tax referred to is the real
estate and chattel taxes upon the
'Kahuku Ranch" This property
comprises land and buildings, cattle
and horses and other live stock, with
grazing, agricultural and dairy tools
and implements. 1t was sold by
plaintiff to defendant September Fl,
1888, by deed of warranty and COW
enant that the premises were free
and clear of all membranes.
The plaintiff continued to reside
on the premises demised for some
after the sale, by an amicable
agreement of the parties, the defend
ant being absent in Honolulu or in
California, and during this time the
plaintiff, among other payments
claimed to be made on defendants
account, paid the taxes.
The contention of the plaintiff is
that the tax was not due, and a fixed |
charge or lien on the estate sold |
until after the date of sale, whereby |
it was not an incumbrance which the |
plaintiff was bound to pay The de-
PENDANT to the contrary.
The Statutes which relate to the |
and payment of taxes as
they stood at the time of the sale, in
respect to dates, are in substance as
follows:
The returns by owners of real and
Of personal property were to be made
as of the first of July. G. l.. p. 123.
The assessor was appointed on or
before the first of July, and it was
mis- duty to notify residents of his
district to make their returns to him
at a designated place and on dates
N the month of July.
The assessor is required to have
MS tax list open for inspection from
Doth to October LIST, and
% give public notice of the time and
place or places for this, and persons
dissatisfied with the taxation may
hen take their appeals.
The Courts of tax appeal sit at
appointed times in the month of
October.
The tax collector calls for the pay
nent of taxes in the month of No
rember and December, not later than
he 18th of December, after which
late he may levy for unpaid taxes
IN sufficient of the goods and chat
lie, or may sue for them.
This Court has held in the
lilo Sugar Company VS.. The
of Finance, Z Haw. 665,
LOU p1OpoIIy Wlbniu GH0 AiuSuOlH
N any part of the first of July was
axable to the owner, although it was
hen on ship board and during that
lay was transported abroad, affirm
ng the case of Brewer & Co.
s. Tax Collector 6 Haw. 554. {
70 stronger case could be present Z
d of the appliation of the liability
which attaches on the first day of
-uly. Our Statutes make no differ
nee between real and personal pro-
erty in respect to the charge of the
Ak being upon the owner, at the date
elecled for the falling of the tax,
be first of July, although the pay
lent of the tax upon real estate is
ecured Notwithstanding the sale or
ransfer of 1t by attaching liability
D the real estate itself. The debt of
be tax is still upon the owner. The
ct of aeSaesmont must necessarily ,