In re Lampitoe
| Decision Date | 12 April 1916 |
| Citation | 232 F. 382 |
| Parties | In re LAMPITOE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Petition for naturalization by one Lampitoe. Petition denied.
The case falls exactly within In re Alverto, 198 F. 688, and needs no other consideration. There may be doubt about such cases as In re Camille (C.C.) 6 Fed. 256, or In re Knight, 171 F. 299; but where the Malay blood predominates it would be a perversion of language to say that the descendant is a 'white person.' Certainly any white ancestor, no matter how remote, does not make all his descendants white.
Petition denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. People of State of California
...4 Grat. (45 Va.) 541; Gentry v. McMinnis, 3 Dana (Ky.) 382; In re Camille (C.C.) 6 F. 256; In re Young (D.C.) 198 F. 715, 717; In re Lampitoe (D.C.) 232 F. 382; In re Alverto (D.C.) 198 F. 688; In re Knight (D.C.) 171 F. 299; 2 Kent Comm. (12th Ed.) 73, note. Cf. the decisions in the days o......
-
De Cano v. State, 28101.
......The following cases held. them eligible for United States naturalization: In re. Mallari, D.C., 239 F. 416, and In re Bautista,. D.C., 245 F. 765. The following cases held them. ineligible: In re Alerto. D.C., 198 F. 688; In. re Lampitoe, D.C., 232 F. 382; In re Rallos,. D.C., 241 F. 686. . . In. 1918, Congress amended § 4 of the act of June 29, 1906, by. adding thereto a seventh subdivision, 40 Stat. 542, 8. U.S.C.A. § 388. This amendatory statute, with that portion. ......
-
Hidemitsu Toyota v. United States
...in Re Mallari (D. C.) 239 F. 416. And see 27 Op. Attys. Gen. 12. They were held not eligible in Re Alverto (D. C.) 198 F. 688, in Re Lampitoe (D. C.) 232 F. 382, and in Re Rallos (D. C.) 241 F. 686. But we hold that until the passage of that act, Filipinos not being 'free white persons' or ......
-
United States v. Gancy
......They were held eligible for naturalization in Re Bautista, D.C., 245 F. 765, and in Re Mallari, D.C., 239 F. 416. And see 27 Op.Attys.Gen. 12. They were held not eligible in Re Alverto, D.C., 198 F. 688, and in Re Lampitoe, D.C., 232 F. 382, and in Re Rallos, D.C., 241 F. 686. But we hold that until the passage of that act, Filipinos not being `free white persons' or `of African nativity' were not eligible, and that the effect of the Act of 1918 was to make eligible, and to authorize the naturalization of, ......