Chomel v. United States

Decision Date20 April 1911
Docket Number1,736.,1,735
Citation192 F. 117
PartiesCHOMEL v. UNITED STATES. BRION v. SAME.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Rehearing Denied July 27, 1911.

Elijah N. Zoline, for appellants.

Edwin W. Sims, U.S. Atty., and Harry A. Parkin, for the United States.

Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner Martha Brion, a native and citizen of the republic of France, arrived in the United States the 5th of February 1906, and since that time has been continuously in the country. The petitioner Raymonde Chomel, a native and citizen also of the republic of France, arrived in the United States the 8th of September, 1905, and has been since continuously in the country. This appeal presents the question whether, having been in the country more than three years prior to the warrants of deportation issued by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor under the act approved March 26, 1910, amending the act of February 20, 1907, the imprisonment and detention of the petitioners for the purposes of deportation are unlawful. If so, the orders appealed from denying the petitions for habeas corpus should be reversed. Otherwise they should be affirmed.

Section 2 of the act of February 20, 1907, limits itself to the exclusion from admission into the United States of the character of persons therein named, including idiots, insane persons, beggars, persons afflicted with dangerous contagious diseases, persons having been convicted of crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, polygamists anarchists, prostitutes, or persons coming into the United States for the purposes of prostitution, and persons who are supported by or receive part of the proceeds of prostitution leaving it to sections 20 and 21 to provide that such persons shall be deported if proceedings therefor are begun within three years, as also the procedure to be followed. Section 3 both in the original act and as amended, relates exclusively to the importation of aliens for the purposes of prostitution or other immoral purposes, the holding of such persons for such purposes in pursuance of such importation, and aliens found inmates of houses of prostitution after they have entered the United States or who derive benefit from the earnings of the same. This section, unlike section 2 contains in its body the remedy to be applied, namely, deportation 'in the manner' provided by sections 20 and 21 of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Central Bank, NA v. FED. HOME LOAN BANK OF SF
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • April 15, 1977
    ...387 F.2d 569, 571 (4th Cir. 1967); see United States ex rel. Brion v. Prentis, 182 F. 894, 897 (N.D.Ill.1910), aff'd and adopted, 192 F. 117 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 223 U.S. 723, 32 S.Ct. 524, 56 L.Ed. 630 That the S&Ls may draw by check on funds held for them by the FHLB, however, does n......
  • Ex parte Garcia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • March 3, 1913
    ...205 F. 53 Ex parte GARCIA. No. 15,338.United States District Court, N.D. California.March 3, 1913 [205 F. 54] ... Marshall ... B ... Co. (C.C.) ... 185 F. 158; Sire v. Berkshire (D.C.) 185 F. 967; ... Chomel v. United States (C.C.A., 7th Circuit 192 F ... 117, 112 C.C.A. 461 ... 2. In ... the ... ...
  • Siniscalchi v. Thomas
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 13, 1912
    ...195 F. 701 SINISCALCHI v. THOMAS, Immigration Inspector. No. 2,263.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.February 13, 1912 [195 F. 702] ... This is ... 1911, Circuit ... [195 F. 706] ... Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, not reported; Chomel ... v. United States, 192 F. 117 (C.C.A. 7th Cir.); ... United States v. Weis (D.C.) 181 F. 860; ... ...
  • Ex parte Szumrak
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • February 23, 1922
    ...procedure prescribed in sections 20 and 21; that is, 'in the manner' provided in those sections. United States v. Weis, supra; Chomel v. United States, supra; United States v. Czeslicki (D.C.) 209 F. 4. Finally, it is contended that, as petitioner was not taken into custody for deportation ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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