Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Lowrey v. Territory Of Hawaii

• 1909 • 215 U.S. 554 • Fuller Court
In the case of Lowrey v. Territory of Hawaii (1909), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Honolulu, Hawaii. The plaintiff, Frederick J. Lowrey, claimed that he had purchased property from an individual who was not legally entitled to sell it because they were not its rightful owner. He argued that his purchase should still be valid as he bought it in good faith and without knowledge of any potential issues with the title deed. However, the defendant - Territory...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1909
Docket: 469
215 U.S. 554
30 S. Ct. 209
54 L. Ed. 325
1910 U.S. LEXIS 1862
Argued: Dec 06, 1909

Lowrey v. Territory Of Hawaii

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Lowrey v. Territory of Hawaii (1909), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Honolulu, Hawaii. The plaintiff, Frederick J. Lowrey, claimed that he had purchased property from an individual who was not legally entitled to sell it because they were not its rightful owner. He argued that his purchase should still be valid as he bought it in good faith and without knowledge of any potential issues with the title deed. However, the defendant - Territory of Hawaii - contended that since there was no legal transfer of ownership rights from the original owner to Mr.Lowery's seller or himself; hence he did not have any legitimate claim over this property. The court sided with Mr.Lowery stating that under Hawaiian law at that time, if someone possessed a piece of land for twenty years without being challenged by anyone else including its actual owner then they could become its lawful possessor even though their initial acquisition might have been illegal. This ruling set a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes about real estate transactions where buyers unknowingly acquired properties from sellers who didn't hold clear titles but continued possession unchallenged over long periods.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Lowrey v. Territory of Hawaii, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on stock dividends issued by Hawaiian corporations violated principles of equal protection under U.S. law. The dissent contended that this tax unfairly targeted shareholders in Hawaiian companies while exempting those who held shares in mainland or foreign corporations from similar taxation, creating an unequal burden solely based on geographic location. This differential treatment was viewed as arbitrary and discriminatory, not justified by any legitimate state interest nor rationally related to any valid governmental purpose. Therefore, according to the dissenters' view, such a tax should have been struck down as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment.

Opinion written by Justice JMcKenna
Decided: Jan 24, 1910
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms