Damon v. Hawaii

Background

The dispute involves a landowner who says he owns a special fishing right between the coral reef and the ahupuaa of Moanalua on Oahu. The claimed right was traced back to Kamehameha IV, passed through successors, and described in a royal patent. Hawaiian laws from the mid-1800s had treated fisheries inside the reef as private to landlords or konohiki while allowing tenants some use. Congress later passed an organic act that repealed laws granting exclusive fishing rights but preserved any vested rights already created. At trial the judge directed a verdict for the defendant, the territorial supreme court upheld that result, and the case reached this Court by writ of error.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the statutes and the royal patent created a vested private property right to the fishery that survived repeal of the general laws. The Court found the older Hawaiian statutes explicitly described such private fisheries and that the patent plainly said a fishing right was attached to the land. The opinion emphasized long continued exercise of the right (forty years) and held that if a law or grant creates a property interest, repealing the general law does not cancel that vested property. Because the patent’s language showed the grantor’s clear intent to convey the fishery, the Court concluded the plaintiff held a private, vested right and should prevail.

Real world impact

The decision lets the landowner enforce the fishery right described in the patent and protects similar vested fisheries created under historic Hawaiian laws. It means longstanding local fishing privileges recognized by statute or valid grants are treated as property, not merely revocable licenses.