Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/211/162/case.php
Timestamp: 2017-12-17 19:19:36
Document Index: 533372043

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1805', '§ 86', '§ 3', '§ 709', '§ 709', '§ 709']

COTTON V. HAWAII, 211 U. S. 162 (1908) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 211 > COTTON V. HAWAII, 211 U. S. 162 (1908)
COTTON V. HAWAII, 211 U. S. 162 (1908)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 211 U. S. 162
Cotton v. Hawaii, 211 U.S. 162 (1908)
The decisions of the Supreme Court of Hawaii in this case, overruling chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The errors assigned are directed to the action of the court below on two subjects. Jurisdiction to consider them is challenged by the defendant in error. To understand the question as to jurisdiction and the issues which it will be necessary to consider, if it be that we have power to decide the merits, requires us to state briefly proceedings which are referred to by both parties and which are embraced in the printed transcript, without determining at this moment how far all the proceedings thus to be referred to may be considered as properly embraced in the record in the legal sense. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On May 27, 1904, as the result of a trial before a jury of an action brought by the Territory of Hawaii to recover damages for the loss of a dredge boat belonging to the territory, through the negligence of the defendants (who are now plaintiffs in error), there was a verdict in favor of the territory for the sum of $25,000. On May 31, 1904, the defendants filed a motion for a new trial, and gave notice that it would be called for a hearing on June 3. On that date, the motion was continued to June 7. On June 7, the territory objected to the court's entertaining the motion because the defendants had not complied with § 1805, Revised Laws of Hawaii, requiring that the party against whom a verdict or judgment had been rendered should, as a prerequisite to moving for a new trial, "file within ten days after rendition of verdict or judgment" a bond securing the payment of costs, and conditioned against the removal or disposition of any property within the jurisdiction, subject to execution. The defendants thereupon asked further time to file the bond. On the same day, the court entered a formal judgment on the verdict, and also granted, over the exception of the plaintiff, the request of the defendants for further time to make and file the bond. The court was of the opinion that the statutory period commenced to run only from the date of the entry of judgment on the verdict. The bond was filed on June 7, the motion for a new trial was renewed on the same day, and was ultimately taken under advisement. The plaintiff, reserving the benefit of its exception as to the power of the court to consider the motion, agreed that the motion might be passed upon in vacation. Meanwhile, the defendants presented and filed a summary bill of exceptions relating to certain errors which it was alleged had been committed by the court during the trial. In February following, the judge who presided at the trial, and who was detained in San Francisco by sickness, telegraphed the clerk of the court that he granted the motion for a new trial, and had forwarded his grounds for doing so by mail. This telegram was filed by the clerk. The term chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The formal judgment entered in the supreme court was simply one reversing the order for a new trial. Thereupon, in the trial court, the defendants moved to be allowed to make the summary bill of exceptions which they had previously taken more specific. Over the objection of the plaintiff, this was allowed to be done, and the defendants thereupon filed an amended bill of exceptions, which was allowed, and upon this bill, conformably to the Hawaiian practice, the exceptions were taken by the defendants to the Supreme Court of Hawaii. In that court, a motion was made to quash the bill of exceptions, on the ground that, as amended, it embraced matters not legally included within the bill as originally filed, and which were, in consequence, not cognizable. This motion was overruled on the ground that, although nothing was open for review on the amended bill, but such questions as were legally incorporated in the original bill, the bill as amended could chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Our authority to review the judgments of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii is derived from the Act of April 30, 1900, 31 Stat. 158, c. 339, § 86, and the amendatory Act of March 3, 1905, 33 Stat. 1035, c. 1465, § 3. In the first act, jurisdiction is conferred over judgments or decrees of the supreme court of the territory only in cases like unto those where we would be empowered to review the judgments or decrees of the courts of the several states, conferred by § 709, Revised Statutes. By the amendatory act, our jurisdiction was extended so as to embrace, in addition, all cases, irrespective of the nature of the questions presented, where the amount involved, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of $5,000. In other words, whilst the first act conferred the power only in cases where it would exist if the decree or judgment had been rendered in a state court, the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
second, adopting the principle and necessarily, therefore, carrying with it the rules generally prevailing as to the review of judgments or decrees of the supreme court of the incorporated territories of the United States, gives an additional right to review, depending solely upon the amount involved. Bierce v. Hutchins, 205 U. S. 340, 205 U. S. 344. As jurisdiction, if it exists in this cause, depends not upon the existence of questions under Rev.Stat. § 709, but entirely upon the amount involved, the authority conferred by the act of 1900 may be at once put out of view. It is elementary, however, that the power to review, both under § 709, Revised Statutes, and under the laws governing the right to review the judgments or decrees of the supreme courts of the incorporated territories generally, extends only to final judgments or decrees. It is apparent, therefore, that we have no jurisdiction to review the several rulings of the supreme court of the territory, the last one in September, 1906, overruling the exceptions, and the prior one in April, 1906, reversing the order granting a new trial, unless those rulings, independently considered, are final in the full sense of the term. Let us test their finality separately.
On its face, the proceeding by which the exceptions of the defendants were taken to the court of last resort in Hawaii for review did not purport to present to that court a consideration of the whole record in the cause, but only submitted the particular rulings embraced in the exceptions. The order which the court entered when it disposed of the exceptions was neither in substance nor did it purport in form to be a final judgment, conclusively disposing of the cause. As our power to review depends upon the acts of Congress, which it is beyond the authority of a territory, by forms of legal procedure, to modify or change, it results that, whatever may be the forms of procedure prevailing in the territory for the review of judgments or decrees, nothing in the territorial laws or procedure can have the effect of conferring upon this Court the power to consider causes coming from the territory by chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It is clear that, under these statutes, the supreme court may chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Meheula v. Pioneer Mill Co., 17 Haw. 91, was brought chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Applying the construction thus given by the supreme court Hawaii to the statutes of the territory, there being no reason to doubt their correctness, it clearly follows that the mere entry by the clerk, on the minutes, of the decision of the court overruling the exceptions, did not constitute a final judgment, subject to review by this Court. Of course, our decision is confined to the case before us. We must not, therefore, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary