Honolulu Rapid Transit Co. v. Wilder

Hawaii Supreme Court

Honolulu Rapid Transit Co. v. Wilder

30 Haw. 795, 1929 Haw. LEXIS 36

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1929

Docket1848

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Haw. 795 (Honolulu Rapid Transit Co. v. Wilder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Honolulu Rapid Transit Co. v. Wilder, 30 Haw. 795, 1929 Haw. LEXIS 36 (haw 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a petition for rehearing. It is based on five grounds, the first ground being that counsel neglected to call the court’s attention to the case of Rapid Transit Co. v. Assessor, 18 Haw. 15. This case was never-' theless considered by us before the original opinion was written. We did not think then nor do we now think it is opposed to the conclusion we reached. One of the other grounds is that we overlooked the committee report on *796 Act 227, L. 1925, in Senate Journal 1925, p. 721. This report was not overlooked but was duly considered and found to be insufficient to justify a different conclusion from that which we reached. Another ground is that we inadvertently ruled that the terms of the franchise of the taxpayer were to be determined as of January, 1928, when in fact the terms of the .taxpayer’s franchise were determined when Act 227, L. 1925, went into effect. This ground we think is without merit. The fourth ground is that the court inadvertently ruled that the action of the public utilities commission changed the terms of the franchise of the taxpayer. We made no such ruling. The last ground is that we misapplied the case of Bell's Gap R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, to the instant case. With due deference to counsels’ opinion we entertain a. different view of the Bell's Gap case.

Robertson & Oastle and J. G. Anthony for the petition.

The petition is denied, without argument, under the rule. :

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is a petition for rehearing. It is based on five grounds, the first ground being that counsel neglected to call the court’s attention to the case of Rapid Transit Co. v. Assessor, 18 Haw. 15. This case was never-' theless considered by us before the original opinion was written. We did not think then nor do we now think it is opposed to the conclusion we reached. One of the other grounds is that we overlooked the committee report on *796 Act 227, L. 1925, in Senate Journal 1925, p. 721. This report was not overlooked but was duly considered and found to be insufficient to justify a different conclusion from that which we reached. Another ground is that we inadvertently ruled that the terms of the franchise of the taxpayer were to be determined as of January, 1928, when in fact the terms of the .taxpayer’s franchise were determined when Act 227, L. 1925, went into effect. This ground we think is without merit. The fourth ground is that the court inadvertently ruled that the action of the public utilities commission changed the terms of the franchise of the taxpayer. We made no such ruling. The last ground is that we misapplied the case of Bell's Gap R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, to the instant case. With due deference to counsels’ opinion we entertain a. different view of the Bell's Gap case.

Robertson & Oastle and J. G. Anthony for the petition.

The petition is denied, without argument, under the rule. :

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Haw. 795, 1929 Haw. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honolulu-rapid-transit-co-v-wilder-haw-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack