Quock Ting v. United States
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FIELD |
| Citation | 35 L.Ed. 501,140 U.S. 417,11 S.Ct. 733 |
| Parties | QUOCK TING v. UNITED STATES |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1891 |
[Statement of Case from pages 417-419 intentionally omitted]
Page 419
J. J. Scrivner, for appellant.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Parker, for the United States.
Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The question presented is whether the evidencer before the court below was sufficient to show that the petitioner was a citizen of the United States. The testimony given by himself amounted to very little; indeed, it was of no force or weight whatever. The particularity and positiveness with which he stated the place of his birth in San Francisco was evidently the result of instruction for his examination on this proceeding, and not a statement of what he had learned from his parents in years past. And his failure to mention any particulars as to the city of San
Page 420
Francisco, which he certainly ought to have been able to do if he resided there during the first 10 years of his life, was surprising. A boy of any intelligence, ariv ing at that age, would remember, even after the lapse of six years, some words of the language of the country, some names of streets or places, or some circumstances that would satisfy one that he had been in the city before. But there was nothing whatever of this kind shown. He gave the name of no person he had seen; he described no locality or incident relating to his life in the city, nor did he repeat a single word of the language, which he must have heard during the greater part of several years, if he was there. The testimony of the father was also devoid of any incident or circumstance corroborative of his statement. The production of the so-called store-book, in which there was an entry of passage-money paid for the boy and his mother, does not strike us as at all conclusive. The accounts of a mere worker on a sewing-machine would not be likely to occupy much space; and the alleged entry could as easily have been made as the manufacture of the story repeated. If we could not believe the story in the absence of the book, we should hesitate to yield credence to it upon the exhibition of the entry. If the petitioner was really born in the United States, and had lived there during the first 10 years of his life, the fact must have been known to some of the father's neighbors, and incidents could readily have been given which would have placed the statement of it beyond all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co.
...Casa deManana v. Hopkins (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 339, 345-346, 219 P.2d 871; emphasis supplied. See also Quock Ting v. United States (1891) 140 U.S. 417, 420-421, 11 S.Ct. 733, 734-35, 35 L.Ed. 501; Davis v. Judson (1910) 159 Cal. 121, The majority alleges that I "buy into" plaintiff's argumen......
-
United States ex rel. Carapa v. Curran
...216, 225, 14 Sup.Ct. 837, 38 L.Ed. 694; Kirby v. Tallmadge, 160 U.S. 379, 383, 16 Sup.Ct. 349, 40 L.Ed. 463; Quock Ting v. United States, 140 U.S. 417, 420, 11 Sup.Ct. 733, 851, 35 L.Ed. 501; Skeffington v. Katzeff (C.C.A.) 277 F. 129, 131; Colyer v. Skeffington (D.C.) 265 F. 17, 23; Chin W......
-
Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. Audio Devices, Inc., 1237-57.
...if there are in it inconsistencies, or inherent improbabilities or undisputed facts contradict it. Quock Ting v. United States, 1891, 140 U.S. 417, 420-421, 11 S.Ct. 733, 35 L.Ed. 501; Grace Bros. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 9 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 170, 174. 63 Straus v. Notaseme Ho......
-
United States v. Spector, 21940 and 21883.
...on the stand. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 1891, 140 U.S. 76, 88, 11 S.Ct. 720, 35 L.Ed. 371; Quock Ting v. United States, 1891, 140 U.S. 417, 420-421, 11 S.Ct. 733, 35 L.Ed. However, both the nature of the proceedings and the fact they antedate the trial must necessarily limit their sc......
-
California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co.
...Casa deManana v. Hopkins (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 339, 345-346, 219 P.2d 871; emphasis supplied. See also Quock Ting v. United States (1891) 140 U.S. 417, 420-421, 11 S.Ct. 733, 734-35, 35 L.Ed. 501; Davis v. Judson (1910) 159 Cal. 121, The majority alleges that I "buy into" plaintiff's argumen......
-
United States ex rel. Carapa v. Curran
...216, 225, 14 Sup.Ct. 837, 38 L.Ed. 694; Kirby v. Tallmadge, 160 U.S. 379, 383, 16 Sup.Ct. 349, 40 L.Ed. 463; Quock Ting v. United States, 140 U.S. 417, 420, 11 Sup.Ct. 733, 851, 35 L.Ed. 501; Skeffington v. Katzeff (C.C.A.) 277 F. 129, 131; Colyer v. Skeffington (D.C.) 265 F. 17, 23; Chin W......
-
Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. Audio Devices, Inc., 1237-57.
...if there are in it inconsistencies, or inherent improbabilities or undisputed facts contradict it. Quock Ting v. United States, 1891, 140 U.S. 417, 420-421, 11 S.Ct. 733, 35 L.Ed. 501; Grace Bros. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 9 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 170, 174. 63 Straus v. Notaseme Ho......
-
United States v. Spector, 21940 and 21883.
...on the stand. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 1891, 140 U.S. 76, 88, 11 S.Ct. 720, 35 L.Ed. 371; Quock Ting v. United States, 1891, 140 U.S. 417, 420-421, 11 S.Ct. 733, 35 L.Ed. However, both the nature of the proceedings and the fact they antedate the trial must necessarily limit their sc......