The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-08-03

OF HAWAII
SUBMITTED July H. 1900. DECIDED AuGUsr 1, 1900.
FRrAR Cd, GAnRArrn j. AND CIRCUIT JuDar IIuMrHnE IS IN
PLACE OF PERRi j., ABSENT.
against
ls, 1895. relating to suits against the government
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR CT
This action of eecment possession of
parcels of land situated the city of Honoluu-par of
formerly the Charles kanaina defend
ant demurred generally the sole question necessary de
trmlne whether eJecmen lies against the Territory
1t Is conceded that the government be only far
consents contended eiecmen may
be maintained against Section Act of March 49,
1899, (as amended ny the Organic Act gives
Supreme Court jurisdiction OF a claims against Govern
ment founded upon any statute of the Ierory upon
regulation OF Executive Department. upon any contract
expressed implied, the all claims which
may be referred by either House OF the Legislature"
ony upon provision statute is
the rst-reang founded upon statute only
statute referred upon which the clam might be founded
is that ejectment brought
y statute winch action may be brought Is
upon which claim founded CLAIMS against the gov
may be founded upon statutes provide for
OF salaries pensions, subsidies bonds, &c but
statute which merely provides to some extent wnat OF
procedure may be pursued in ordinary of eecment
1t is further contendd that actions OF ejecmen lay against
the government the former Ch 81 Laws of 1885,
and that in repeating that far related actions
against the government and enactng the statute above
referred the Legislature intended, limit the classes OF
actions that might brought against the Government but
merely prescribe condition of loyalty the part of the
CLAIMANT and that this shown by the requirement in Section
of allegation that the claimant, citizen, has all times
borne allegiance this Government &c. and by the cir
arising of the overthrow of the monarchy and
the establishment of the Provisional Government in As
understand the change made
of 1893, but of the nsurrecon of 1895 and of the
decisions of the court in High Hdraan Government Iaw.
49, and Dillingham; HaraiidH GotcnmeR Ib 101
under the former the liable actions of
The radically changed and for the very pur
pose of limiting actions against the Government to those
ractu.
The statute now in force was taken substantially from that
of the United States relating the Of claims In Lang
ford ERtCd States 101 L. s. 34 the Supreme Court of the
United States held that the limited the jurisdiction of the
Court of Claims cordctH and that acton would
lie against the United States for the and occupation of
land which the Government claimed its whatever might
be the rule the Government had taken the land for public
recognizing Its private ownership others United States
Lee 106 H. 1885, relied for the Territory not brought
in the Court of Claims under the statute from which Is
taken 1t ordinary action of ejectment brought originally
in court by private person against other their
private capacity and subsequently removed into Circuit
the United States where the Attorney appeared
specially and up the claim of the United States 1t
agreed that the action could have been maintained against
the United States upon the particular ground that ectment
did within the of the for clear that
the had application that but upon the general
ground that the Government could be sued without its
sent and the question was whether eectment could be mann
tanned against the individual defendants when they claimed
hold only on behalf OF the Government bare majority OF the
court held that it could under the circumstances of that
But already stated it taken for granted that ejecnen
would lie against the Government ITSELF and the minority OF
the court referring the statute relating to the Court of Claims
from which taken, said (p 240) "No act of Congress
has conferred upon that upon any other tribunal
cra jurisdiction of suits against the United States to
possession of real property, to redress tort.
Having held that eecment cannot be maintained against The
Government any under the statute need expr
opinion upon the question whether if the statute III terms
mted it. the action could have been maintained against thu
o could
maintained against the Territory Notwithstanding the ceso
and transfer of the lands and other property of the Republic
the United States under the Joint Resolution of Annexation.
The demurrer is sustained and the complaint dismissed
Ndgoon d Long for the plaintiffs.
H. ". Robbins, Assistant to the Attorney General, for tn
defendant.