United States v. Gleeson
| Decision Date | 07 December 1898 |
| Citation | 90 F. 778 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. GLEESON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
This cause comes here upon appeal from a decision of the circuit court, Eastern district of New York, sustaining the demurrer of defendant to the bill of complaint. 78 F. 396. The suit is brought by the government, in equity, to procure a decree vacating the certificate of naturalization issued to the defendant by the superior court of the city of New York May 24, 1867, on the ground that the same was procured through false and fraudulent representations, statements, or declarations then made by said Gleeson in his petition to the court to induce it to issue said certificate. The complaint sets forth in detail the sworn statements of Gleeson upon his application, and avers that at the time he thus swore 'that he had resided within the United States three years next preceding his arrival at the age of twenty-one years and that he had resided in the United States for five years including three years of his minority,' he well knew that such statements were false and untrue.
George H. Pettit, for the United States.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
We have here a suit, the object of which is to vacate, set aside, and annul a judgment of a court having jurisdiction to make such judgment, on the sole ground that defendant induced such court to make such judgment by his own false and perjured testimony. It would seem to be within the rule laid down in U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 66, viz. that a 'court will not set aside a judgment because it was founded on a fraudulent instrument or perjured evidence, or for any matter which was actually presented and considered in the judgment assailed. ' This case is cited with approval in Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 207, 16 Sup.Ct. 139. It has been contended that Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S 598, 12 Sup.Ct. 62 () is so inconsistent with U.S. v. Throckmorton that it must be held to have overruled the last-mentioned case. Such is the conclusion apparently reached by the circuit court of appeals in the Seventh circuit in Graver v. Faurot, 22 C.C.A. 156, 76 F. 257,-- a cause which has had an interesting history. See 64 F. 241, and 162 U.S. 435, 16 Sup.Ct. 799. The rule of stare decisis, however, leads this court to a different conclusion. Precisely the same question-- as to the effect of Marshall v. Holmes upon U.S. v. Throckmorton-- was before us in the case of Bailey v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Kusche
...endless nature of the strife, than any compensation arising from doing justice in individual cases." The C.C.A. of the 2nd Circuit in the Gleeson case, United States v. Gleeson, 1898, 90 F. 778, had explicitly held that the doctrine of the Throckmorton case, supra, applied when alleging fra......
-
Costello v. United States, 59
...rule that had apparently been applied to revocation of a judgment admitting to citizenship prior to the Act of 1906, see United States v. Gleeson, 2 Cir., 90 F. 778; cf. United States v. Norsch, C.C., 42 F. 417. Congress thus acted in 1952 to make it clear that false statements in the cours......
-
Griffith v. Bank of New York
...on the ground of the additional remedy provided by Louisiana statute and thus available in the federal court. Cf. United States v. Gleeson, 2 Cir., 90 F. 778. See also Simon v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 U.S. 115, 35 S.Ct. 255, 59 L.Ed. 5 Osterling v. Commonwealth Trust Co. of Pittsburgh, D.C.W.......
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Callicotte
... 267 F. 799 CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. v. CALLICOTTE. [ 1 ] No. 5195. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 1, 1920 ... [267 F. 800] ... John E ... As to the views of the Circuit Court of Appeals ... of the Second Circuit, see U.S. v. Gleeson, 90 F ... 778, 33 C.C.A. 272 ... That ... the Supreme Court of the United States ... ...