United States v. Salomon
| Decision Date | 14 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 2900. |
| Citation | 231 F. 928 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SALOMON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Rehearing denied May 20, 1916.
Walter Guion, U.S. Atty., of New Orleans, La.
Before PARDEE and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a proceeding instituted on February 3, 1915, by the district attorney under the statute which provides that:
'It shall be the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing the suit, for the purpose of setting aside and canceling the certificate of citizenship on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured.' 2 U.S. Comp. Stat 1913, Sec. 4374.
Neither the petition nor the affidavit upon which it was based charged the commission of any fraud. The sole charge was that the naturalization sought to be set aside and canceled was made by an order of the court on July 21, 1914, the same day on which the petition for naturalization was filed, in disregard of the provision of the statute that:
'In no case shall final action be had upon a petition until at least ninety days have elapsed after filing and posting the notice of such petition. ' U.S. Comp. Stat. 1913, Sec. 4354.
The facts stated in the naturalization petition showed that the petitioner was entitled to be naturalized, and this was shown by the sworn answer filed in this case. This is not controverted by the government. In the opinion rendered by the District Judge it was stated:
'It is admitted by the government that the petition was filed in good faith, that the applicant was guilty of no fraud, and was entitled to be naturalized under the provisions of the act of 1910.'
Such an admission is not otherwise shown by the record, but there has been no suggestion of the existence of a ground for contesting the appellee's naturalization if the proceedings on his application therefor shall conform to the requirements of the statute. It may be assumed sumed that the last-quoted provision of the statute is a mandatory one, and that a court in which an application for naturalization is filed is not vested with a discretionary power...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Kusche
... ... than that of residence ... Erickson 9/28/10 DC WD MICH 188 F. 747 No declaration of intention ... Ness 10/17/14 DC ND IOWA 217 F. 169 No certificate of arrival ... Salomon 5/20/16 CCA 5th 231 F. 928 Certificate granted same ... day petition filed ... Hodgman 3/27/15 DC MONT 221 F. 1018 Canadian naturalization ... ...
-
United States v. Zucca
...Circuits had taken the position adopted by the Second Circuit in this case. United States v. Richmond, 3 Cir., 17 F.2d 28; United States v. Salomon, 5 Cir., 231 F. 928; Cohen v. United States, 38 App.D.C. 123. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits favored the contrary position. United States v. Tu......
-
United States v. Minerich
...the lines quoted above, and a marginal notation citing United States v. Richmond, 3 Cir., 1927, 17 F.2d 28, and United States v. Salomon, 5 Cir., 1916, 231 F. 928, 929. The Richmond opinion is interlaced with extensive quotations from United States v. Salomon, supra, where neither the petit......
-
Prospect 34, LLC v. Gunnison Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
...See United States v. Richmond, 17 F.2d 28, 32 (3d Cir.1927) ; United States v. Salomon, 231 F. 461, 464 (E.D.La.1916), aff'd, 231 F. 928 (5th Cir.1916) ; City of Tampa v. Palmer, 89 Fla. 514, 105 So. 115, 117 (Fla.1925) ; Haen v. Haen, 210 Neb. 380, 314 N.W.2d 276, 277 (Neb.1982) ; see also......