Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU CORPORATION COUNSEL For the Valuation of the Physical and Tangible Property of the Honolulu Rapid Transit Company, Limited
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1973-03-28
Citations: 54 Haw. 412
Docket Number: No. 5226
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU CORPORATION COUNSEL For the Valuation of the Physical and Tangible Property of the Honolulu Rapid Transit Company, Limited
Judges: Richardson, C.J., Marumoto, Abe, Levinson and Kobayashi, JJ.
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 412–413

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU CORPORATION COUNSEL For the Valuation of the Physical and Tangible Property of the Honolulu Rapid Transit Company, Limited
No. 5226
March 28, 1973
Richardson, C.J., Marumoto, Abe, Levinson and Kobayashi, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The following statement of HRT in its Petition for Rehearing merits comment:
This Court has ruled that the HRT franchise is a contract. It did not however touch upon the City's obligation under Section 13 of that contract to pay HRT $1,367,200 for its unrecouped write-offs.
The Decision and Order of the Public Utilities Commission in the instant case fails to mention anything about the alleged unrecouped write-offs. The record of the case also fails to show any evidence of unrecouped write-offs. HRT's appeal also fails to mention any alleged error by PUC relative to unrecouped write-offs.
The reason for the dearth of any claim and/or proof of unrecouped write-offs becomes crystal clear when one reviews HRT's petitions filed before PUC in 1941 relative to the alleged unrecouped write-offs.
Section 13 is clear and unambiguous and obviously does not include the write-offs of "street car tracks, ties and all matters appertaining thereto, as well as street cars and equipment appertaining thereto" which HRT voluntarily abandoned when it substituted other transportation facilities. There is no obligation on the part of the City to pay the alleged unrecouped write-offs.
Howard K. Hoddick (Anthony, Hoddick, Reinwald & O'Connor of counsel) for the petition.
The Petition for Rehearing is denied without argument.