Spreckels v. Brown,
212 U.S. 208 (1909)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Spreckels v. Brown, 212 U.S. 208 (1909)

Spreckels v. Brown

No. 61

Submitted December 11, 1908

Decided February I, 1909

212 U.S. 208


Although the Supreme Court of Hawaii has not authority to enter a final judgment which is reviewable by this Court when the case is before it on bill of exceptions, it may do so when a writ of error has brought up the judgment. Cotton v. Hawaii, 211 U. S. 162, distinguished.

Tax returns are not conclusive as to values. Where it sufficiently appears by affidavits in the record and in this Court that the value of the land involved exceeds the jurisdictional amount, the case will not be dismissed on a motion based on lower valuations in tax returns.

In Hawaii, a disseisee may convey to a stranger, and a deed purporting to remise, release, and forever quitclaim amounts to a conveyance of all the grantor's interest in the property at the time.

While the words "sea beach," taken in a strict sense, might not include a small strip outside of the metes and bounds specified in an Hawaiian deed, where by natural interpretation the grant conveyed all the upland to low water mark, and with it all accretions, this Court will not reverse a ruling of the lower court to that effect.

In a deed to property in Hawaii, monuments shown in a diagram held to prevail, in case of discrepancy, over metes and bounds.

The party having the burden of proof is not entitled to a reversal because the jury was charged to find against him unless satisfied that

Page 212 U. S. 209

he had clearly proved his case even though the word "clearly " be slightly overemphasized. Ward v. Cochran, 150 U. S. 597.

Where articles indicating the judge's leanings appear in a newspaper, and one of the parties informs the judge that he need not give any instruction to the jury as to reading the paper, the verdict cannot be set aside because similar articles subsequently appeared in other papers which may have been read by member of the jury.

The admission of affidavit of jurymen to effect that they had not been influenced by newspaper article held to be immaterial, the order overruling the motion for new trial being right on other grounds.

18 Haw. 91 affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.