In re Wolf

• Decision Date: 13 April 1911
• Parties: In re WOLF.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

188 F. 519

In re WOLF.

United States Circuit Court, M.D. Tennessee.

April 13, 1911

A. M Tillman, U.S. Atty., for the United States.

On Final Hearing.

SANFORD District Judge.

The petitioner appears to be a person of good moral character and otherwise qualified to be admitted as a citizen of the United States, but the government insists that while this is true he is yet not entitled to naturalization because one of the two affiants who verified his petition for naturalization is not it is urged, a citizen of the United States.

Section 4 of the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat.

596 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 479), requires that the petition for naturalization 'be verified by the affidavits of at least two credible witnesses, who are citizens of the United States.'

The objection raised is that one of these affiants, the witness Goldstein, is shown not to be a citizen of the United States because he is alien born and has not, as the government insists, become a naturalized citizen of the United States. It appears from the proof that this witness was naturalized before the passage of the act of 1906 by the county court of Davidson county; and the contention is that the said county court was not a court which was authorized to naturalize aliens under the law as it then existed.

By section 2165 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), which was in force at the time these naturalization proceedings were had in the county court, it was provided that aliens might be admitted as citizens of the United States by 'a court of record of any of the states having common-law jurisdiction, and a seal and clerk. ' The government contends that the county court of Davidson county, while a court of record having a seal and clerk, is not a court of 'common-law jurisdiction' within the meaning of this statute, and hence had no jurisdiction to naturalize the witness.

It is well settled that to constitute a court one of common-law jurisdiction within the meaning of this section of the Revised Statutes, it is not necessary that it should be one possessing a general common-law jurisdiction, but that if any part of its jurisdiction answers that designation the requirement of the statute is fulfilled. United States v. Power, 14 Blatchf. 223, Fed. Cas. No. 16,080; Ex parte Tweedy (D.C., W.D. Tenn.) 22 F. 84; United States v. Lehman (D.C.) 39 F. 49; Levin v. United States (8th Circuit) 128 F. 826, 63 C.C.A. 476. In the last-named case the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said:

'Courts having common-law jurisdiction, within the meaning of this section, are those which have the power to punish offenses, to enforce rights, or to redress wrongs recognized by the common law, or which, in the determination of the causes which they decide, are governed by the principles, rules, and usages of that law. The term 'having common-law jurisdiction' is used to distinguish these courts from those which have no jurisdiction save in equity, in admiralty, or in matters not involving offenses or rights under the common law. U.S. v. Lehman (D.C.) 39 F. 49, 50; Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 446, 447, 7 L.Ed. 732; In the Matter of Martin Conner, 39 Cal. 98, 101, 2 Am.Rep. 427; People ex rel. v. McGowan, 77 Ill. 644, 20 Am.Rep. 254. Courts which have some common-law jurisdiction are courts having common-law jurisdiction, and it is not indispensable to the qualification of a court under this act of Congress that it should have all the common-law jurisdiction, or even that it should have general common-law jurisdiction. Ex parte Tweedy, 22 F. 84; In the Matter of Martin Conner, 39 Cal. 98, 101, 2 Am.Rep. 427; U.S. v. Power, 14 Blatchf. 223, Fed. Cas. No. 16,080, 27 Fed.Cas. 607, 608; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 168, 170.'

Applying this test to the jurisdiction of the county court of Davidson county, I am of the opinion that it cannot properly be said to be a court of common-law jurisdiction.

It is well settled that in Tennessee the county court is one of very limited jurisdiction, restricted to the express provisions of the statutes. Young v. Shumate, 3 Sneed, 369; Dean v. Snelling, 2 Heisk. 484.

Without setting out all the powers conferred by statute upon the county court-- under which it is given original...