Frick v. Webb

Decision Date19 November 1923
Docket NumberNo. 111,111
Citation263 U.S. 326,44 S.Ct. 115,68 L.Ed. 323
PartiesFRICK et al. v. WEBB, Atty. Gen. of California, et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Louis Marshall, of New York City, for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 327-329 intentionally omitted] Mr. U. S. Webb, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees

[Argument of Counsel from page 330 intentionally omitted].

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit brought by the appellants to enjoin the above-named Attorney General and district attorney from enforcing the California Alien Land Law,1 submitted by the initiative and approved by the electors, November 2, 1920, on the grounds that it is in conflict with the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and with the treaty between the United States and Japan.

Appellants are residents of California. Frick is a citizen of the United States and of California. Satow was born in Japan, of Japanese parents, and is a subject of the Emperor of Japan. Frick is the owner of 28 shares of the capital stock of the Merced Farm Company, a corporation organized under the laws of California, that owns 2,200 acres of farm land in that state. Frick desires to sell the shares to Satow, and Satow desires to buy them. By the complaint it is alleged in substance that the appellees have threatened to and will enforce the act against appellants if Frick sells such stock to Satow, and will institute proceedings to escheat such shares to the state as provided in the act; that, but for the provisions of the act and such threats, Frick would sell and Satow would buy the stock. And it is averred that the act is so drastic and the penalties attached to its violation are so great that appellees are deterred from carrying out the sale, and that, unless the court shall determine its validity in this suit, appellants will be compelled to submit to it whether valid or invalid.

Appellants applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain appellees during the pendency of the suit from instituting any proceeding to enforce the act against appellants. The application was heard by three judges, as provided in section 266 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1243). The motion was denied, and the case is here on appeal from that order.

In Porterfield v. Webb, 263 U. S. 225, 44 Sup. Ct. 21, 68 L. Ed. ——, and Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U. S. 313, 44 Sup. Ct. 112, 68 L. Ed. ——, decided this day, we held that the act does not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment or with the treaty between the United States and Japan (37 Stat. 1504). In the case first mentioned, we held that the act prohibits the leasing of agricultural land by citizens of the United States to a Japanese alien, and in the latter that it prohibits the making of a cropping contract between a citizen and a Japanese alien.

The treaty does not grant permission to the citizens of subjects of either of the parties in the territories of the other to own, lease, use, or have the benefit of lands for agricultural purposes, and, when read in the light of the circumstances and negotiations leading up to its consummation, the language shows that the parties respectively intended to withhold a treaty grant of that privilege. Terrace v. Thompson, supra; Id. (D. C.) 274 Fed. 841, 844, 845. The applicable provision of section 3 of the act (St. 1921, p. lxxxiii) is:

Hereafter all ineligible aliens 'may * * * acquire shares of stock in any * * * corporation that is or may be authorized to acquire,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Sei Fujii v. State
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1952
    ...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; cf. Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 44 S.Ct. 15, 68 L.Ed. 255. See, also, Cockrill v. People of State of California, 1925,......
  • Graham v. Richardson Sailer v. Leger
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1971
    ...263 U.S. 225, 44 S.Ct. 21, 68 L.Ed. 278 (1923); Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U.S. 313, 44 S.Ct. 112, 68 L.Ed. 318 (1923); Frick v. Webb, 263 U.S. 326, 44 S.Ct. 115, 68 L.Ed. 323 (1923); but see Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 68 S.Ct. 269, 92 L.Ed. 249 (1948). 10 E.g., Passenger Cases, 7 How. 28......
  • Torao Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1948
    ...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. 9 See Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 646, 649, 672, 68 S.Ct. 269, 275, 276, 288. 1. Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297......
  • Oyama v. State of California
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1948
    ...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; and Frick v. Webb, 263 U.S. 326, 44 S.Ct. 115, 68 L.Ed. 323. 13 'All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white cit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • DIASPORIC DREAMS: LAW, WHITENESS, AND THE ASIAN AMERICAN IDENTITY.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 48 No. 5, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...to their white counterparts. (57.) 263 U.S. 313, 326 (1923) (holding that "[n]o constitutional right of the alien was infringed"). (58.) 263 U.S. 326, 334 (1923) (holding that the act did not violate the Fourteenth (59.) Aoki, supra note 53, at 66 (suggesting that Lochner era substantive du......

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