Burdick v. Disher, 1 Haw. 67 (Haw. 1852). · Go Syfert
Burdick v. Disher, 1 Haw. 67 (Haw. 1852). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Young (haw, 2005-03-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Young
Haw. · 2005 · confidence medium
This is because “[ejven where the Court is convinced in its own mind that the Legislature really meant and intended something not expressed by the phraseology of the Act, it has no authority to depart from the plain meaning of the language used.” State v. Meyer, 61 Haw. 74, 77 , 595 P.2d 288, 291 (1979) (quoting Queen v. San Tana, 9 Haw. 106, 108 (1893)); see id. (“We do not legislate or make laws.”); Burdick v. Disher, 1 Haw. 67, 67 (1852) (stating that the court’s “province” is to “administer the laws as [it] find[s] them, leaving it with the legislature to correct [its] faul…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Territory v. Legaspis.
Haw. · 1953 · signal: see also · confidence low
H., § 11128; see also The King v. Anderson and, Russell, 1 Haw. 67, 68 ; Territory v. Goto, 27 Haw. 65, 67 .) That evidence, as contradistinguished from the limited and inadequate testimony pertaining to plaintiff in error Legaspi, constituted substantial evidence both direct and circumstantial to enable the jury to fairly deduct a reasonable factual inference that the defendants other than Legaspi were in fact participants in the conspiracy alleged in the second count.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JAMES A. BURDICK
v.
JOHN DISHER
Hawaii Supreme Court.
Apr 15, 1852.
1 Haw. 67
Mr. Harris for plaintiff., Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Bates for defendant.
Lee.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Chief Justice Lee

in his charge to the jury said: “ Whether the plaintiff had notice or not of the lease to McCormack, previous to his purchase, can make no difference with his legal right to recover in this suit. If McCormack failed to get his lease recorded within the time required by law, and Burdick’s deed was previously recorded, then the lease is invalid as against the subsequent deed. The statute, which is clear and positive, says: That all leases, deeds, etc., shall be recorded; and that no conveyance of real estate not recorded within thirty days after its execution, shall be valid as against a subsequent deed of the same estate previously recorded. That is just the case in hand. The lease was not recorded until this morning, while the deed was made and recorded some months since, and hence the lease is invalid as against Burdick. We see no way open by[*68] which the defendant can escape. It is a very hard case, indeed, to say, that when the subsequent purchaser has notice of a previous unrecorded conveyance, he may get his deed recorded and dispossess the first party; but such is the plain and unequivocal language of the law, and as it is we are constrained to pronounce it. To what the law ordains we must submit, and though we might wish it otherwise, yet it is not our province to alter or amend the statutes. It is with us to administer the laws as we find them, leaving it with the legislature to correct their faults.”

Mr. Harris for plaintiff. Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Bates for defendant.

The jury after a short absence rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, giving him possession of the premises, and awarding him damages to the amount of six and a quarter cents, one juror disisent-ing.

After the rendering of the verdict, the Chief Justice remarked that this case being the first which had ever arisen under our Registry Act, and consequently of much importance, the court had taken the opinion of the bar, during the absence of the jury as to the correctness of its charge, and that the bar was of the unanimous opinion, including both the counsel for the defence, that the charge was sound and the construction given to the statute the proper one.