In re Pearlman

Decision Date02 April 1915
Docket Number172.
Citation226 F. 60
PartiesIn re PEARLMAN.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

Melville E. Lesser, of Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner.

Hubert F. Fisher, U.S. Dist. Atty., of Memphis, Tenn., and M. R Bevington, Chief Naturalization Examiner, of St. Louis, Mo for the United States.

McCALL District Judge.

The government resists the granting of the petition, upon the ground that the court is without jurisdiction, for the reason that the petitioner was not a resident of this district at the time he filed the declaration.

Paragraph 3, section 3, of the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906 (34 Statutes at Large, pt. 1, p. 596 (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 4351)) provides:

'That the naturalization jurisdiction of all courts herein specified, state, territorial, and federal, shall extend only to aliens resident within the respective judicial districts of such courts.'

And again, the first paragraph of the first subdivision of section 4 of the said act provides that:

'He shall declare on oath before the clerk of any court authorized by this act to naturalize aliens, * * * in the district in which such alien resides, two years at least prior to his admission, * * * that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States. * * * ' Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 4352.

It goes without saying that if the petitioner did not reside in this district in January, 1908, when he filed his declaration of intention, his petition should not be allowed, because the court would be without jurisdiction.

The question to be decided is: Was he a resident of this district at the time he filed his declaration of intention? The facts substantially are these: Philip Pearlman, the petitioner arrived in the United States, at the port of New York, May 14, 1906, and came to Memphis, Tenn., in June, 1906. He stopped here with a relative until July, 1906, when he left Memphis, Tenn., for Sunflower, Miss., where he obtained employment, and remained until March, 1908, in which latter month he returned to Memphis, Tenn., to attend a business college, and remained there until September, 1908. Immediately upon the completion of his course at the business college, he returned to Sunflower, Miss., where he again secured employment, and remained until January, 1911. Except from March, 1908, to September, 1908, he spent the whole of his time at Sunflower, Miss., from July, 1906, until January,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • In re Vasicek
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 12 Marzo 1921
    ... ... filed in a state court, in the county in which the court ... concerned sits (United States v. Schurr (D.C.) 163 ... F. 648; United States v. Wayer (D.C.) 163 F. 650; ... United States v. Johnson (D.C.) 181 F. 429; Petition ... of Briese (D.C.) 267 F. 600 (see In re Pearlman ... (D.C.) 226 F. 60, for rule when application is filed in ... federal court)); that he is not a radical (United States ... v. Olsson (D.C.) 196 F. 562; United States v ... Swelgin (D.C.) 254 F. 884); that he is an alien, and not ... theretofore naturalized (In re Buck (D.C.) 204 F ... ...
  • United States v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 13 Diciembre 1917
    ...that the alien seeking naturalization was seeking a high privilege. United States v. Gulliksen, 244 F. 727, . . . C.C.A. . . .; In re Pearlman (D.C.) 226 F. 60; States v. Spohrer (C.C.) 175 F. 440; Johannessen v. United States, supra. In some cases the courts had held slight technical objec......
  • Ingram v. Ingram Dart Lighterage Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • 1 Mayo 1915

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