Maney v. United States, 27
| Decision Date | 22 October 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 27,27 |
| Citation | 278 U.S. 17,49 S.Ct. 15,73 L.Ed. 156 |
| Parties | MANEY v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Bruno V. Bitker, of Milwaukee, Wis., Louis Marshall, of New York City, and Edwin S. Mack, of Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 18 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General and Mr. W. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 19-20 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner obtained a certificate of naturalization by a decree of a District Court of the United States in February, 1924. In June, 1925, the United States filed a petition to have the certificate cancelled on the ground that it was illegally procured. The District Court dismissed the Government's suit, 13 F.(2d) 662. But this decision was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals and an order cancelling the certificate of naturalization was directed. 21 F.(2d) 28. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court on the 9th of January last. 276 U. S. 609, 48 S. Ct. 208, 72 L. Ed. 729.
The petition for naturalization was filed on November 13, 1923, but at that time there was not filed the certificate from the Department of Labor stating the date, place, and manner of arrival in the United States, and the declaration of intention of such petitioner, which the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, § 4, 34 Stat. 596 (Code, title 8, § 380 (8 USCA § 380)), required to be attached to and made part of the petition. It is said that the Department of Labor did not issue the certificate until November 24, 1923, and it was not mailed to the clerk of the Naturalization Court until December 3. The hearing on naturalization took place on February 11, 1924, and the District Court, against the objection of the United States, ordered the certificate filed and attached to the petition nunc pro tunc, as of the date when the petition was filed, and made the decree purporting to admit the petitioner to citizenship that has been annulled in the present proceeding. The petitioner says that the original decree made the question res judicata, and that it was right, or at least within the power of the Court.
By section 15 of the Naturalization Act (Code, § 405) it is made the duty of district attorneys upon affidavit showing good cause therefor to institute proceedings for cancellation 'on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured.' The first question is whether the certificate was illegally procured within the meaning of section 15. If the statute makes it a condition precedent to the authority of the Court to grant a petition for naturalization that the Department of Labor's certificate of arrival shall be filed at the same time, then, when it appears on the face of the record that no such certificate has been filed, a decree admitting to citizenship is bad. It is illegal in the sense that it is unauthorized by and contrary to the law. United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472, 475, 37 S. Ct. 422, 61 L. Ed. 853; United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319, 324, 325, 38 S. Ct. 118, 62 L. Ed. 321.
We are of opinion that the Circuit Court of Appeals was right in holding that the filing with the petition of the certificate of arrival was a condition attached to the power of the Court. Although the proceedings for admission are judicial, Tutun v. United States 270 U. S. 568, 46 S. Ct. 425, 70 L. Ed. 738, they are not for the usual purpose of vindicating an existing right but for the purpose of getting granted to an alien rights that do not yet exist. Hence not only the conditions attached to the grant, but those attached to the power of the instrument used by the United States to make the grant must be complied with strictly, as in other instances of Government gifts. By section 4 of the Act an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the manner prescribed, 'and not otherwise.' And by the same section the certificate from the Department of Labor is to be filed 'at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Player's Poker Club, Inc.
...pretend that a prerequisite to jurisdiction was timely in existence when, in fact, it was not. See, e.g., Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17, 21-23, 49 S.Ct. 15, 73 L.Ed. 156 (1928) (when attachment of a certificate of arrival was a prerequisite to district court's authority to grant petit......
-
Schneiderman v. United States
...compliance with a 'condition precedent to the authority of the Court to grant a petition for naturalization.' Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17, 22, 49 S.Ct. 15, 73 L.Ed. 156. Under the Act in question, as under earlier and later Acts,1 Congress prescribed numerous conditions precedent to......
-
United States v. Osidach, Civ. A. No. 79-4212.
...202, 208, 5 L.Ed.2d 173 (1960); Schwinn v. United States, 311 U.S. 616 61 S.Ct. 70, 85 L.Ed. 390 (1940); Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17, at 22-23 49 S.Ct. 15, 16, 73 L.Ed. 156; United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, at 475 37 S.Ct. 422, 425, 61 L.Ed. 853; Luria v. United States, 231 ......
-
United States v. Kusche
...with the Toyota case, 1925, 268 U.S. 402, 45 S.Ct. 563, 69 L.Ed. 1016, where the applicant was a Japanese.15 In the Maney case, 1928, 278 U.S. 17, 49 S.Ct. 15, 73 L.Ed. 156, a certificate was cancelled on the ground that it was illegally procured because of conditions somewhat similar to th......