Takuji Yamashita v. Hinkle
Decision Date | 13 November 1922 |
Docket Number | No. 177,177 |
Parties | TAKUJI YAMASHITA et al. v. HINKLE, Secretary of State of Washington |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Geo. W. Wickersham, of New York City, and Corwin S. Shank, of Seattle, Wash., for petitioners.
Mr. Lindsay L. Thompson, of Olympia, Wash., for respondent.
This case presents one of the questions involved in the case of Takao Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178, 43 Sup. Ct. 65, 67 L. Ed. ——, this day decided, viz.: Are the petitioners, being persons of the Japanese race born in Japan, entitled to naturalization under section 2169 of the Revised Statutes of the United States?
Certificates of naturalization were issued to both petitioners by a superior court of the state of Washington prior to 1906, when section 2169 (Comp. St. § 4358) is conceded to have been in full force and effect.
The respondent, as Secretary of State of the state of Washington, refused to receive and file articles of incorporation of the Japanese Real Estate Holding Company, executed by petitioners, upon the ground that, being of the Japanese race, they were not at the time of their naturalization and never had been entitled to naturalization under the laws of the United States and were therefore not qualified under the laws of the state of Washington to form the corporation proposed, or to file articles naming them as sole trustees of said corporation. Thereupon petitioners applied to the Supreme Court of the state for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to receive and file the articles of incorporation, but that court refused and petitioners bring the case here by writ of certiorari.
Upon the authority of Takao Ozawa v. United States, supra, we must hold that the petitioners were not eligible to naturalization, and as this ineligibility appeared upon the face of the judgment of the superior court, admitting petitioners to citizenship, that court was without juris diction and its judgment was void. In re Gee Hop (D. C.) 71 Fed. 274; In re Yamashita, 30 Wash. 234, 70 Pac. 482, 94 Am. St. Rep. 860.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrison v. People of State of California
...defined in the understanding of the mass of men. Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178, 43 S.Ct. 65, 67 L.Ed. 199; Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 199, 43 S.Ct. 69, 67 L.Ed. 209; United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204, 214, 43 S.Ct. 338, 67 L.Ed. 616; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 1......
-
Matter of Psalidas
...1935. The decree of the court purporting to cancel the citizenship of that person was dated October 28, 1935. We relied on Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 199 (1922), and on U.S. ex rel. Lapides v. Watkins, 165 F.2d 1017 (2d Cir. 1948) and found that we may, if necessary, reject a judicial de......
-
Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co.
...lacking altogether. Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U. S. 348, 353, 41 S. Ct. 116, 65 L. Ed. 297;Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U. S. 199, 43 S. Ct. 69, 67 L. Ed. 209;United States v. Walker, 109 U. S. 258, 266, 3 S. Ct. 277, 27 L. Ed. 927. On the other hand, if a court were to fi......
-
Rice v. Gong Lum
...The most recent decisions of the court on that subject are in the cases of Ozawa v. U.S. 260 U.S. 178, 67 L.Ed. 199, and Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 198, 67 L.Ed. 209. In Yamashita case, Chief Justice RAEVIS of the supreme court of Washington in 30 Wash. 234, discusses the divisions of th......
-
Same struggle, different difference: ADA accommodations as antidiscrimination.
...U.S. 204, 215 (1923) (holding that an Indian high-caste Hindu was not a white person for purposes of immigration); Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 199, 200 (1922) (same for Japanese immigrant); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 694 (1897) (same for Chinese immigrant); see generally......