The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-02-16
STAMP TAX
DECISION
Appeal of {. N. Cooke
From the Treasurer
Dismissed.

BY unanimous opinion, written by
Justice Galbraith, the Supreme Court.
has decided a question relating to the
stamp tax. 1t is In the case of ca
NJ Cooke VS.. A. n. Kepoikai TreasA
urer Territory Of Hawaii, which was
submitted on January 25. PLAINTIFFS
appeal from the Treasurer's ruling is
dismissed. Following are the syllabus
and the opinion in full: N<Slsar
THE SYLLABUS.
The stamp duty, payable under Sec
tion 9i1, Chapter GA, Civil Laws on ac-
count of deed of conveyance should
be assessed on the total amount of the
! consideration therein expressed, even
though this is stated to be the aggre-
gate amount of several separate bids
for distinct lots and blocks and each
tract and the amount bid therefor is
set out in detail in the deed.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal under Section 931S
, Civil Laws, from the decision of the
Treasurer assessing the stamp tax on
a deed of conveyance.
The plaintiff as attorney in fact for
a mortgagee under power of sale
contained in the mortgage advertised
and mortgaged premises and caused
them to be sold at public auction. The
! property is located in the District Of
Honolulu in a contiguous tract but
has been surveyed into lots and blocks.
At the sale lots and blocks were offered
and sold separately ranging in price
from two hundred dollars to two thor.-
sand four hundred dollars but thel
plaintiff was the purchaser in each \
instance. One deed was executed COW
ering all of the property sold and re-
citing, in part, as follows: in consider
alton of the sum of sixty two thou
sand three hundred dollars ($62,30
,, to them paid by the Charles NJ Cooke,
Limited, corporation aforesaid, party
of the second part which said sum OF
sXty-two thousand three hundred dol
lars ($62, ,30O, in the aggregate, is the
total of the several purchase prices of
separate and distinct blocks, lots and
tracts of land within said mortgage
premises, the respective purchase pri-
ces being hereinafter set opposite the
description and designation of the
blocks, lots and tracts of land so as
aforesaid purchased at said sale, re-
ceipt of said sum total of siXty-two
thousand three hundred (s62 300 doll
lars being hereby acknowledged, do
hereby grant, bargain, sell and con-
.yev," etc. This deed also gives de-
tailed description of each tract sold
and the purchase price bid for same.S,
The plaintiff claims that the stamH
tax should be calculated on the sepaS
rate prices bid for the several lots and
blocks as set out in the deed and not
on the aggregate amount of the pur-
chaseS. By the first method the tax
would be two hundred and one ($291t
dollars, and by the second three hum
dred and fifteen (s315.) dollars.
The assessment was made under the
following schedule, as given in Section
GAL, Chapter 64 C. l.. "Conveyances
upon the sale of any property, real orr
personal, or rights therein, upon the
principal or only deed or instrument,
when the purchase or consideration
money therein expressed shall not ex-
ceed $500, 81; And when exceeding $500
and not exceeding $1,000. SO; And when
exceeding $1,000 and not exceeding &c.,
600, or fractional part thereof, So; And
when exceeding $4,000 and not exceed
ing s5O,0OO, for every $1,000 or fractions
al part thereof, 81; And when exceeding
part thereof, So"
1t is also contended on behalf of the
plaintiff that Section 923, c. L. reading:
Every instrument containing distinct
matters, or made for more than one
consideration, shall be stamped on each
matter or consideration" supports his
construction of the schedule. 1t does
not appear that this instrument was
tlor inrS
nor is this view sustained by the dee
cision of this court constituting said
section, Minister v. Castle. s Haw. 1867
The cases cited by counsel holding
that at public auctions the contract
of sale is complete when the successful
bidder is declared have been expressly
followed by this court. Morgan V. Bet
ters, 13 Haw. 6S5. We still believe that
those cases announce the correct rule
on that question but do not see how
that rule is applicable to this case.
The stamp tax under this schedule
is not assessed on the contract of sale
but upon the Conveyance upon the
sale of any property" and "the pur-
chase or consideration money therein
expressed" 81
The schedule under consideration Is
plain. There is no ambiguity about it
and consequently no room for con-
struction. The purchase or considera.
tion money recited in this deed is sixty
two thousand three hundred (s62,3O0)
dollars, and on that amount the tax
should be assessed.
The appeal is dismissed. 1t is so
ordered.
d. II. Case and c. F. Clemons, attor-
neys for plaintiff; l.. Andrews, Attor-
ney General for defendant.