HONOLULU RAPID TRANSIT & LAND CO. V. WILDER, 211 U. S. 144 (1908)Subscribe to Cases that cite 211 U. S. 144
U.S. Supreme Court
Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Co. v. Wilder, 211 U.S. 144 (1908)
Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Company v. Wilder
Argued October 28, 29, 1908
Decided November 16, 1908
211 U.S. 144
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII
Where the record does not show that any federal question was raised or suggested before the assignment of error 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 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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.
Writ of error to review 18 Haw. 15 dismissed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
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 Stat. 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.