TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Co. v. Wilder

Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Company v. Wilder, Assessor

Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Co. v. Wilder, 211 U.S. 144 (1908)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 16, 1908
Docket
No. 22
Judges
Holmes
Citations
211 U.S. 14429 S. Ct. 4653 L. Ed. 1241908 U.S. LEXIS 1531
Syllabus
Where the record does not show that any Federal question was raised or suggested before the assignment of errór in this court, a judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii cannot be reviewed by this court under § 86 of the act of April 30, 1900, c. 339, 31 Stat. 141. The claim that a charter granted by the Republic of Hawaii has become a statute of the United States because ratified by act of Congress, must be asserted before assignment of error in this court in order to give this court jurisdiction to review on the ground that the construction of, or a right claimed under, a law of the United States is involved.
Summary
ERROR TO THE'SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is intended to bring up a question of deductions from gross income in assessing the income tax of the appellant, as well as that of the liability'of the plaintiff in error to the tax. The liability to taxes not mentioned in the charter has. been disposed of by the preceding case. As to the former question, the plaintiff in error says that it has no net income liable to taxation. But the whole tax assessed was $588.20, and therefore the case cannot be brought here under the act of March 3, 1905, c. 1465, § 3, 33 Stat. 1035 . On the other hand, the record does not show that any Federal question was raised or suggested before the assignment of error in this court, and therefore the plaintiff in error has no standing under the act of April 30, 1900, c. 339, § 86, 31 Stát. 141. It is true that in the decision of the Tax Appeal Court it is said that the appellant claims under § 17 of its charter a right to charge certain amounts against income. But it does not appear there or elsewhere that the appellant set up that the charter was a statute of the United States, or that it relied upon Article I, § 10, or any other clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Writ dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 11935: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Toyota v. Territory of Hawaii226 U.S. 184 (1912)
  2. Noble v. Oklahoma City1935 OK 162, 44 P.2d 135

Most recent

  1. Noble v. Oklahoma City1935 OK 162, 44 P.2d 135
  2. Toyota v. Territory of Hawaii226 U.S. 184 (1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list