Takuji Yamashita v. Hinkle

Decision Date13 November 1922
Docket NumberNo. 177,177
PartiesTAKUJI YAMASHITA et al. v. HINKLE, Secretary of State of Washington
CourtU.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.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

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.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the state of Washington is therefore

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Morrison v. People of State of California
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1934
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • February 25, 1965
    ...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.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 1929
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 11, 1925
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Same struggle, different difference: ADA accommodations as antidiscrimination.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 153 No. 2, December 2004
    • December 1, 2004
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT