Liliuokalani v. United States

45 Ct. Cl. 418, 1910 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 59, 1909 WL 905
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 16, 1910
DocketNo. 30577
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 Ct. Cl. 418 (Liliuokalani v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Liliuokalani v. United States, 45 Ct. Cl. 418, 1910 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 59, 1909 WL 905 (cc 1910).

Opinion

Booth, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a demurrer to claimant’s petition. The claimant, Liliuokalani, was formerly Queen of the Hawaiian Islands. Her cause of action is predicated upon an alleged “ vested equitable life interest ” to certain lands described in the petition, known as “ crown lands,” of which interest she was divested by the defendants. It is conceded that the absence of such an interest rendered the crown lands subject to the usual transmission of title appurtenant to a change of sovereignty. The solution of the question involves a detailed examination of the various acts of the Hawaiian legislative body and reference to various sections of the Hawaiian constitutions, which for convenience will be set forth as an appendix to this opinion.

The origin of the crown lands and history connected therewith is epitomized by Justice Bobertson in an exhaustive opinion in 2 Haw., 715. Previous to the reign of Kamehameha III a system of land tenure akin to the ancient feudal system prevailed in the islands. In 1839 the dissatisfaction and disputes engendered by the payment of rents, the rendition of personal service, etc., imposed upon landholders, encouraged the King to bring about a settled policy with reference to land titles. In 1840 Xamehameha III granted the first constitution, in which it is recited that: [425]*425“ Kamehameha I was the founder of the Kingdom, and to him belonged all the land from one end of the islands to the other, though it was not his own private property. It belonged to the chiefs and people in common, of whom Kamehameha I was the head and had the management of the landed property.” In another clause it is provided that all lands forfeited for nonpayment of taxes shall revert to the King. (Fundamental Laws of Hawaii.) In 1846 a board of land commissioners was appointed by law, charged with the duty of dividing the rights of the various individuals in lands, and quieting titles thereto, and finally, in March, 1848, the King “ signed and sealed two instruments contained in the Mahele Book,” by which he demised specified lands, described therein to the chiefs and people and reserved unto himself the lands now in suit, then and ever afterwards known as the crown lands. On June 7, 1848, the legislature for the islands confirmed the action of the King, and thereafter all portions of the royal domain except the reserved crown lands were treated as public domain and managed and disposed of by appropriate legislation. The title to the crown lands was vested in the Sovereign; he leased and alienated the same at his pleasure; the income and profits therefrom were his without interference or control. In January, 1865, the unlimited latitude allowed the King in the control of the crown lands found them charged with mortgages to secure sums of money which threatened their extinguishment, and the legislature, by the act of January 3, I860, relieved the lands from the oppression of the mortgages, by the issuance of bonds, provided against their alienation, and put their management and control in the hands of commissioners as provided in the act. Subsequently, on July 6, 1866, the legislature relieved the crown lands from the liquidation of the bonds previously provided for, and the Government-assumed and paid the mortgage debt.

The claimant became Queen of the islands on January 20, 1891, succeeding her brother, King Kalakaua. On January 17, 1893, she yielded her authority over the islands by an instrument in writing, abdicated her throne, and was succeeded in authority by a provisional government. On July [426]*4264, 1894, said provisional government was succeeded by a government known as the Republic of Hawaii, and thereafter the Hawaiian Islands were peaceably, upon request, on August 12, 1898, annexed to and became a part of the United States of America.

The history of the Hawaiian Islands from the earliest time to the ascension of Kamehameha I is the usual story of conquest. Kamehameha I established a monarchy; his title and sovereignty was the usual one of conquest, and while the attendant civilization was much advanced the King retained his sovereign authority and prerogatives. The act of Kamehameha III in 1848 was, as before observed, the culmination of numerous dissensions as to land tenures, and the King divided the public domain as hereinbefore set forth. Since 1848 the crown lands have descended to the reigning sovereign. At the April term of the Supreme Court of Hawaii in 1864 the nature and extent of the King’s title in the crown lands was squarely before the court, and the court in an exceedingly able opinion held that under said act “ the lands descended in fee, the inheritance being limited, however, to the successors to the throne, and each successive power may regulate and dispose of the same according to his will and pleasure, as private property, in like manner as was done by Kamehameha III.”

Taking the language of the court we find an estate in lands presumably vested in fee simple in so far as the Crown is concerned, as distinguished from the personality of the Sovereign, and yet limited as to possession and descent by conditions abhorrent to a fee-simple estate absolute. The act of 1865 further curtails the title vested in the King. The preamble of the act recites expressly the nature and extent of the King’s tenure, “ for the purpose of maintaining the royal state and dignity,” followed by appropriate legislation to thereafter prevent their alienation or incumbrance. <

The act of 1865 to become effective under the Hawaiian constitution required «the approval of the King. (Fundamental Laws of Hawaii, p. 112.) On January 3, 1865, Kamehameha Y approved the statute which expressly divested the King of whatever legal title or possession he [427]*427theretofore had in or to the Crown lands. (6 Haw., 195-208.) The Hawaiian Government in 1865 by its own legislation determined what the court is now asked to determine.

The decision of the court in 2 Haw., supra, was some time previous to the passage of the act of 1865, and although the court sustained the right of dower in the widow of the King, it is clear from the opinion that the crown lands were treated not as the King’s private property in the strict sense of the term. While possessing certain attributes pertaining to fee-simple estates, such as unrestricted power of alienation and incumbrance, there were likewise enough conditions surrounding the tenure to clearly characterize it as one pertaining to the. support and maintenance of the Crown, as distinct from the person of the Sovereign. They belonged to the office and not to the individual. Significant "in this connection is the transaction with Claus Spreckels in July, 1882. Her Highness Kuth Keelikolani, sister and heir of Kamehameha V, though never succeeding to the throne, conveyed to Spreckels all her interest in the crown lands. The sovereign authorities hastened to dispute the transaction, and subsequent legislation by .way of compromise restored the attempted conveyance to the general body of the crown lands. (Appendix, p. 8.) Since 1865, so far as the record before us discloses, the character of the crown lands has not been changed; they have passed to the succeeding monarch. The income, less expense of management, has been used to support the royal office and treated as belonging to the Crown. All other property of the King has uniformly passed to his heirs regardless of his royal successor.

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

Related

Rubellite Kinney Johnson v. The United States
976 F.2d 747 (Federal Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 Ct. Cl. 418, 1910 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 59, 1909 WL 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liliuokalani-v-united-states-cc-1910.