The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-02-12
STAMP TAX
DECISION
Appeal of c. N. Cooke
From the Treasurer
Dismissed.

By unanimous opinion, written by
Justice GaIbraith, the Supreme Court
has decided a question relating to the
stamp tax It is in the case Of c.
NJ. Cooke VS.. A y. Kepoikai, Treas
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:
THE SYLLABUS.
| The stamp duty. payable under Sec
tion s41, Chapter 81. Civil I.aws. on ac-
COUNT Of a deed of conveyance should
! De 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 sS1.
Civil Laws, from the decision Of the
Treasurer assessing the stamp tax on
deed OF conveyance.
The plaintiff as attorney in fact for
| q mortgage under a power OF sale
contained in the mortgage advertised
| ane mortgaged premises and caused
them to be sold at public auction. The
property is located in the District OF
Honolulu in 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 thou
sand four hundred dollars but the
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 1851, 5000
TO them paid by the Charles NJ. Cooke,
Limited, corporation aforesaid, party
OF the second part. which said sum Of
sixty-two thousand three hundred dol
lars (s62. 300. 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 prf-
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 sfxty-two
thousand three hundred CSC, 3v00 dol
lars being hereby acknowledged. do
hereby grant, bargain. sell and con-
vev,'' etc. This deed also gives a de-
tailed description OF each tract sold
and the purchase price bid for same
The plaintiff claims that the stamp
tax should be calculated On the sepa-
rate prices bid for the several lots and
blocks as Sc. 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 (sz91-)
dollars. and by the second three hun
dred and fifteen (ss15.) dollars
The assessment was made under the
following schedule. as given IN Section
s41 Chapter 81, c. L Conveyances
upon the sale of any property, real or !
personal, or rights therein, upon the |
principal or only deed or instrument,
when the purchase or consideration /
money therein expressed shan not eX-
coed $500. 81; And when exceeding $500 /
and not exceeding s., 600, s.; And when |
exceeding 81, 600 and not exceeding So /
Doa ar fractional part thereof. 50; And |
when exceeding $4,000 and not exceed /
ing $50. 600. for every $1,000, or fraction /
Al part thereof, 81; And when exceeding
s50. COO for every 1900 or fractional /
part thereof, So.
IT is also commended. on behalf Of the /
,IafrtiT that Section 929, c l. reading: |
Every instrument containing distinct
matters or made for more than one
shall be stamped on each
matter or consideration" supports his
of the schedule II does
,at appear that this instrument was
made for more than one consideration
NOR Is this view sustained by the de-
,isfon of this court constituting SAID
section. Minister V. Castle, Haw- 10
The cases cited by counsel holding
that at public auctions the contract
~ sale is complete when the successful
,iadar fs declared have been expressly
ollavad BY this court Morgan v Bet
ars IL Haw. SIS. We still believe that
rosa cases announce the correct rule
N that question but do not see how
hat rule is applicable to this case
The stamp tax under this schedule
: not assessed on the contract OF SAFE
80 7,nor, the conveyance upon the
'sIa Of any property and the pur-
.basa or consideration money therein
Tba schedule under consideration Is
,a4n There is 10 ambiguity about II
"a consequently no room for con-
Tr1,c+{on- The purchase or eonsidera-
ion money recited in this deed : Sixty
NO thousand three hundred lSo--seo1
olIars and on that amount the tax
houId be assessed
The appeal is dismissed Il IS 50
rdered- 49,
ers for plaintiff; l. Andrews, Astor-