This document summarizes a 1907 court case, Kawananakoa vs Polyblank, regarding whether the Territory of Hawaii could be sued. The case involved a mortgage on land where part was later conveyed to the Territory. The court held that as a sovereign entity, the Territory of Hawaii had immunity from lawsuits unless it consented. The rationale was that as the authority that establishes legal rights, a sovereign cannot be subjected to legal claims against those very rights. Thus, the Territory could not be sued in this case without waiving its immunity. The decree affirming the foreclosure and sale was upheld.
This document summarizes a 1907 court case, Kawananakoa vs Polyblank, regarding whether the Territory of Hawaii could be sued. The case involved a mortgage on land where part was later conveyed to the Territory. The court held that as a sovereign entity, the Territory of Hawaii had immunity from lawsuits unless it consented. The rationale was that as the authority that establishes legal rights, a sovereign cannot be subjected to legal claims against those very rights. Thus, the Territory could not be sued in this case without waiving its immunity. The decree affirming the foreclosure and sale was upheld.
This document summarizes a 1907 court case, Kawananakoa vs Polyblank, regarding whether the Territory of Hawaii could be sued. The case involved a mortgage on land where part was later conveyed to the Territory. The court held that as a sovereign entity, the Territory of Hawaii had immunity from lawsuits unless it consented. The rationale was that as the authority that establishes legal rights, a sovereign cannot be subjected to legal claims against those very rights. Thus, the Territory could not be sued in this case without waiving its immunity. The decree affirming the foreclosure and sale was upheld.
3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution: The State may not
be sued without its consent. Topic: Sovereignty / Basis of Immunity Kawananakoa vs Polyblank No. 273 April 8, 1907 Ponente: Holmes Facts: The case at bar is an appeal from a decree affirming a decree of foreclosure and sale under a mortage executed by the appellants (Ballou) to the appellee, Sister Albertina. After the execution of the mortgage, part of the land was conveyed to the Territory of Hawaii and it became a public street. When a decree of foreclosure was made, the decree did not include the sale of the land conveyed to the Territory. The decree also directed a judgment for the sum remaining in case the proceeds from the sale was not sufficient to cover the debt. The appellants argue that all parts of the mortgage land must be joined and that the deficiency judgment shouldnt be entered until the entire mortgaged land is sold. To support this, they also argued that the Territory of Hawaii can also be liable to suit. Issue: W/N the territory of Hawaii is liable to suit. Held: No. A sovereign is exempt from suit not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. The territory of Hawaii cannot be sued since the territory itself is where the rights derive their power. It could waive its exemption, but in this case it did not since the inability to join all parties and to sell all the land is not due to a conveyance by the mortgagor directly or indirectly to the territory. Ruling: Decree affirmed. Notes: This opinion is so short, it barely needs digesting. The most important part of this opinion was the quoted statement above, which explains why you cannot sue a State without its consent.