United States v. Seid Bow

Decision Date09 June 1905
Citation139 F. 56
PartiesUNITED STATES v. SEID BOW.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Vermont

Appeal from Commissioner's Order of Deportation.

Peter F. McManus, for appellant.

James L. Martin, U.S. Atty.

WHEELER, District Judge.

The appellant is of the Chinese race, born in China. From 1892 to 1898 he appears to have been a partner in the firm of Quong Ying Lung, doing Chinese grocery business, in the capital stock of which his share was $500. Thus he was a merchant, within the definition of the Chinese exclusion acts (Act Sept. 13, 1888, c. 1015, 25 Stat. 476 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1312)), before, during, and for a long time after the time in which Chinese laborers were required to register in order to be entitled to remain in the United States. Tom Hong v. U.S., 193 U.S. 517, 24 Sup.Ct. 517, 48 L.Ed. 772. After the expiration of that time there was no law requiring registration of laborers for lawfully remaining in the United States. When he ceased to be a merchant in 1898 he became a laborer, within the definition of the same acts, and, although he has remained such ever since, he has been domiciled lawfully here. Since then he has not been subject to deportation, and is not entitled to be discharged from these proceedings, according to that decision.

Appellant discharged.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Ex parte Wong Yee Toon
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 6 novembre 1915
    ...227 F. 247 Ex parte WONG YEE TOON. United States District Court, D. Maryland.November 6, 1915 ... Petition ... for habeas corpus ... 319; United ... States v. Leo Won Tong (D.C.) 132 F. 190; United ... States v. Seid Bow (D.C.) 139 F. 56; In re Chin Ark ... Wing (D.C.) 115 F. 412; United States v. Lee ... Chee, ... ...
  • Sibray v. United States ex rel Yee Yok Yee
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 3 novembre 1915
    ...become a laborer. United States v. Louie June (D.C.) 128 F. 522; United States v. Leo Won Tong (D.C.) 132 F. 190; United States v. Seid Bow (D.C.) 139 F. 56. In case of United States v. Foo Duck (D.C.) 163 F. 440, affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 172 F. 856, 97 C.C.A. 204, it was h......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT