Sec.

3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution: The State may not

be sued without its consent.
Topic: Sovereignty / Basis of Immunity
Kawananakoa vs Polyblank
No. 273
April 8, 1907
Ponente: Holmes
Facts:
The case at bar is an appeal from a decree affirming a decree of
foreclosure and sale under a mortage executed by the appellants
(Ballou) to the appellee, Sister Albertina.
After the execution of the mortgage, part of the land was conveyed to
the Territory of Hawaii and it became a public street. When a decree of
foreclosure was made, the decree did not include the sale of the land
conveyed to the Territory. The decree also directed a judgment for the
sum remaining in case the proceeds from the sale was not sufficient to
cover the debt.
The appellants argue that all parts of the mortgage land must be
joined and that the deficiency judgment shouldnt be entered until the
entire mortgaged land is sold. To support this, they also argued that
the Territory of Hawaii can also be liable to suit.
Issue: W/N the territory of Hawaii is liable to suit.
Held: No. A sovereign is exempt from suit not because of any formal
conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground
that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the
law on which the right depends.
The territory of Hawaii cannot be sued since the territory itself is where
the rights derive their power. It could waive its exemption, but in this
case it did not since the inability to join all parties and to sell all the
land is not due to a conveyance by the mortgagor directly or indirectly
to the territory.
Ruling: Decree affirmed.
Notes: This opinion is so short, it barely needs digesting. The most
important part of this opinion was the quoted statement above, which
explains why you cannot sue a State without its consent.