Cockrill v. People of State of California

Decision Date11 May 1925
Docket NumberNo. 182,182
Citation45 S.Ct. 490,69 L.Ed. 944,268 U.S. 258
PartiesCOCKRILL et al. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Algernon Crofton, of San Francisco, Cal., and Charles A. Wetmore, Jr., of Marysville, Cal., for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. F. L. Guerena, of San Francisco, Cal., for the People of the State of California.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiffs in error were convicted in the superior court of Sonoma county, Cal., of conspiracy to effect a transfer of real property in violation of the Alien Land Law of that state. Judgment was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal. People v. Cockrill, 62 Cal. App. 22, 216 P. 78. A petition to have the case heard and determined in the Supreme Court of California was denied. The case is here on writ of error. Section 237, Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1214).

Under the Alien Land Law, Japanese subjects who are not eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States are not permitted to acquire, use, or control agricultural lands in California. Statutes of California 1921, p. lxxxiii; Treaty of February 21, 1911 (37 Stat. 1504); Porterfield v. Webb, 263 U. S. 225, 44 S. Ct. 21, 68 L. Ed. 278; Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U. S. 313, 44 S. Ct. 112, 68 L. Ed. 318; Frick v. Webb, 263 U. S. 326, 44 S. Ct. 115, 68 L. Ed. 323; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 44 S. Ct. 15, 68 L. Ed. 255. Section 9 provides:

'Every transfer of real property, or of an interest therein, though colorable in form, shall be void as to the state and the interest thereby conveyed or sought to be conveyed shall escheat to the state if the property interest involved is of such a character that an alien mentioned in section two hereof [one not eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States] is inhibited from acquiring, possessing, enjoying or transferring it, and if the conveyance is made with intent to prevent, evade or avoid escheat as provided for herein. A prima facie presumption that the conveyance is made with such intent shall arise upon proof of * * * the taking of the property in the name of a person other than the persons mentioned in section two hereof if the consideration is paid or agreed or understood to be paid by an alien mentioned in section two hereof. * * *'

Section 10 provides that, if two or more persons conspire to effect a transfer of real property or of any interest therein in violation of the provisions of the statute, they shall be punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.

Plaintiff in error Cockrill is an American, and Ikada is a Japanese subject not eligible to citizenship. They entered into an agreement to purchase certain agricultural lands and to take title in the name of Cockrill. Ikada furnished the money which was paid on account of the purchase price, and, upon the making of the contract, took possession of the property. Cockrill had no interest in the land; and the prosecution maintained that he made the contract with the seller and intended to take the deed and hold the land in trust for Ikada. But plaintiffs in error represented that the land was being acquired for and was to be owned by the children of Ikada, who are natives of the United States and entitled to take and hold such lands. See Estate of Tetsubumi Yano, 188 Cal. 645, 649, 206 P. 995. The court included in its charge to the jury the above quoted provisions of section 9. Plaintiffs in error assert that the rule of evidence so declared violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and also the treaty between the United States and Japan.

It is not, and could not reasonably be, suggested that the statute is repugnant to the due process clause. It does not operate to preclude any defense. The inference that payment of the purchase price by one from whom the privilege of acquisition is withheld, and the taking of the land in the name of one of another class, are for the purpose of getting the control of the land for the ineligible alien is not fanciful, arbitrary, or unreasonable. There is a rational connection between the facts and the intent authorized to be inferred from them. The statute involves no attempt to relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It merely creates a presumption which may be overcome by evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. See Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178, 45 S. Ct. 470, 69 L. Ed. —, decided April 27, 1925; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co....

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Sei Fujii v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 17, 1952
    ...U.S. 326, 44 S.Ct. 115, 68 L.Ed. 323, Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 44 S.Ct. 15, 68 L.Ed. 255, or Cockrill v. People of State of California, 268 U.S. 258, 45 S.Ct. 490, 69 L.Ed. 944, it has reversed this court on the only recent cases which have considered the problem here involved. Fu......
  • Oyama v. State of California
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1948
    ...as between strangers taking from the same transferors, there appears to be none. It is for this reason that Cockrill v. California, 1925, 268 U.S. 258, 45 S.Ct. 490, 49 L.Ed. 944, does not support the State's position. In that case an ineligible alien paid for land and had title put in a st......
  • Vigeant v. Postal Tel. Cable Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 2, 1927
    ...of alleged violation of the equal protection clause, and in others statutes have been refused enforcement. Cockrill v. California, 268 U. S. 258, 262, 45 S. Ct. 490, 69 L. Ed. 944;Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U. S. 171, 181, 44 S. Ct. 280, 68 L. Ed. 623. They need not be reviewed. The prin......
  • Hsieh v. Civil Service Commission of City of Seattle
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • August 26, 1971
    ...of both constitutions do not forbid all distinctions in state law between citizens and resident aliens. Cockrill v. California, 268 U.S. 258, 45 S.Ct. 490, 69 L.Ed. 944 (1925); Terrace v. Thompson, supra. Thus, where the entry of certain aliens would have been lawful, a state statute prohib......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Amending Indictments in Colorado: Rule 6.8, Colo. R. Crim. P
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 6-5, May 1977
    • Invalid date
    ...to show the commission of a public offense apparently may not be added. See People v. Cockrill, 62 Cal.App. 22, 216 P. 78 (1923), aff'd. 268 U.S. 258; People v. Joseph, 21 Cal.App.2d 336, 69 P.2d 465 (1937); Mitchell v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App. 734, 245 P. 1109 (1926); cf. Evans v. Commo......

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