| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

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.
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.