Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

1111

LEE LUNG v. PATTERSON.

186 U. S. 168-177

Questions of State law as to which State court decisions must be followed in actions originating in, or removed to, Federal courts. Note, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 433.

Power of State court to declare purpose of State statute is plenary. Approved in Flanigan v. Sierra County, 122 Fed. 26, 58 C. C. A. 340, following decisions of California Supreme Court sustaining constitutionality of county tax ordinances passed under act of April 1, 1897; London, Paris etc. Bank v. Aronstein, 117 Fed. 608, 54 C. C. A. 663, holding transfer of shares by British corporation operating in California, to citizen thereof, is governed by California law.

Mortgage on mining property in California owned by foreign corporation is not valid unless ratified by stockholders in manner provided by statute.

Approved in Royal Consol. Min. Co. v. Royal Consol. Mines, 157 Cal. 753, 754, 756, 759, 137 Am. St. Rep. 165, 110 Pac. 131, 132, 133, holding mortgage of mining property valid when executed by director owning two-thirds of stock.

Distinguished in In re Heffron Co., 216 Fed. 647, 648, holding New York statute requiring authority from stockholders to mortgage property of corporation did not apply to mortgage of property in State of foreign. corporation; Dillon v. Myers, 58 Colo. 500, 146 Pac. 271, upholding ultra vires mortgage by corporation which received proceeds.

Interference by courts with internal affairs of foreign corporation.
Note, 19 Ann. Cas. 87.

186 U. S. 168–177, 46 L. Ed. 1106, 22 Sup. Ct. 795, LEE LUNG v. PATTERSON.

Chinese Exclusion Act is not affected by treaty.

Approved in Ah How v. United States, 193 U. S. 77, 48 L. Ed. 622, 24 Sup. Ct. 357, Chinese treaty of 1894 does not repeal existing law requiring Chinese to establish right to remain in United States.

Under statutes relating to immigration of Chinese, collector of port at which alien Chinese seeks to land has jurisdiction over his right to land, and to pass on evidence presented to establish it.

Approved in Ex parte Wong Yee Toon, 227 Fed. 252, holding decision before administrative officers on proceedings for deportation of Chinese not reviewable by courts where evidence would fairly make out charge; United States v. Nopoulos, 225 Fed. 658, holding, under act of June 29, 1906, Federal court had jurisdiction of proceeding to cancel certificate of citizenship issued by State court, though right of appeal existed; Lee Leong v. United States, 217 Fed. 49, 133 C. C. A. 34, denying habeas corpus sought by Chinese ordered deported, alleging hearing unfair but not stating in what respect; United States v. Li Chiong, 217 Fed. 47, 133 C. C. A. 31, upholding decision of collector denying Chinese right to land; United States ex rel. Gegiow v. Uhl, 215 Fed. 575, 131 C. C. A. 641,

upholding finding by immigration officers that immigrants were likely to become public charges; Ex parte Garcia, 205 Fed. 58, holding irregularities in taking affidavits in deportation proceedings did not invalidate proceedings; Frick v. Lewis, 195 Fed. 696, 115 C. C. A. 493, and Prentis v. Sen Leung, 203 Fed. 28, 121 C. C. A. 389, both holding District Court had no jurisdiction to pass on right of Chinese person, ordered deported, to remain where he had fair, though summary opportunity to defend; United States v. Dolla, 177 Fed. 105, 21 Ann. Cas. 665, 100 C. C. A. 521, holding naturalization proceeding was not reviewable by Circuit Court of Appeals; Wong Sang v. United States, 144 Fed. 969, 970, 75 C. C. A. 383, decision of immigration officers by which Chinese aliens are refused landing, is conclusive; State ex rel. Gorelick v. Superior Court, 75 Wash. 243, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 425, 134 Pac. 918, holding naturalization proceeding in State court not subject to review by appeal.

186 U. S. 177–178, 46 L. Ed. 1111, 22 Sup. Ct. 811, GALLOWAY V. STATE NATIONAL BANK OF FORT WORTH.

Leave to prosecute writ of error to State court without giving security required by Revised Statutes, section 1000, cannot be granted under act of 1892.

Approved in Bradford v. Southern Ry. Co., 195 U. S. 247, 49 L. Ed. 180, 25 Sup. Ct. 55, writ of error from Circuit Court of Appeals cannot be prosecuted without security for costs.

Practice and procedure governing transfer of causes to Federal Supreme Court for review. Note, 66 L. R. A. 858.

186 U. S. 178–181, 46 L. Ed. 1112, 22 Sup. Ct. 871, HATFIELD ▼. KING. Not cited.

186 U. S. 181-192, 46 L. Ed. 1113, 22 Sup. Ct. 857, HANOVER NATIONAL BANK V. MOYSES.

Congress has power to provide for the liberation of debtors from encumbrance on future exertion.

Approved in In re Home Discount Co., 147 Fed. 551, discharge in bankruptcy avoids assignment of wages earned by bankrupt after filing petition; In re Schwaninger, 144 Fed. 557, debtor having one debt and no assets entitled to relief under Bankruptcy Act.

Bankruptcy Act is not invalid for want of uniformity because it recogmizes exemptions provided by local laws.

Approved in Thomas v. Woods, 173 Fed. 591, 596, 19 Ann. Cas. 1080, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1180, 97 C. C. A. 535, and In re Hays, 181 Fed. 676, 104 C. C. A. 656, both holding dower interest of bankrupt's wife in premises sold as part of bankrupt's estate must be determined by State law; State v. Doe, 92 Kan. 220, 139 Pac. 1172, and State v. United States Express Co., 164 Iowa, 135, 137, 145 N. W. 459, 460, both upholding act of Congress removing interstate character and protection from shipments

1113

CHIN BAK KAN v. UNITED STATES. 186 U. S. 193-201

of liquor into States to be used in violation of State laws; Minneapolis etc. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 136 Wis. 162, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 821, 116 N. W. 911, upholding statute creating railroad commission and empowering it to fix reasonable rates.

Bankruptcy Act is not invalid because it provides for adjudication without notice to creditors.

Approved in In re Southern Arizona Smelting Co., 231 Fed. 90, holding filing of voluntary petition by corporation constituted act of bankruptcy, and creditor could not attack adjudication on ground that it was not insolvent; In re Junck & Balthazard, 169 Fed. 483, holding filing of voluntary petition by partner on behalf of partnership was act of bankruptcy, but nonassenting partner was entitled to make proof that it is not insolvent; In re Wilka, 131 Fed. 1005, upholding jurisdiction of court to order sale of property outside of State free from lien of mortgage creditor; Silvey v. Tift, 123 Ga. 808, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 386, 51 S. E. 750, adjudication in bankruptcy does not estop third parties sued as having received preference from establishing title to goods; Roberts v. Fernald, 72 N. H. 201, 55 Atl. 943, decree of adjudication binding on creditor who had no notice of petition for involuntary bankruptcy.

Notice after jurisdiction has attached as condition of due process of law. Note, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1162.

Congress may prescribe regulations concerning discharge in bankruptcy that are not so grossly unreasonable as to be incompatible with fundamental laws.

Approved in Watson v. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 169 Fed. 955, upholding Employers' Liability Act of 1908; In re Neely, 134 Fed. 669, upholding power of Congress to regulate discharge; Johnson v. Hunter, 127 Fed. 223, upholding Arkansas acts of 1895, authorizing sale of lands for taxes on four weeks' published notice; Citizens' Loan Assn. v. Boston & M. R. R., 196 Mass. 532, 124 Am. St. Rep. 584, 13 Ann. Cas. 365, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1025, 82 N. E. 698, holding assignment of wages to become due under existing employment made before bankruptcy of employee was enforceable after discharge as lien preserved by section 67d of Bankruptcy Act.

Effect of bankruptcy on dower rights of bankrupt's wife. Note, 19 Ann. Cas. 1087.

The Webb-Kenyon law. Note, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 1171.

186 U. S. 193-201, 46 L. Ed. 1121, 22 Sup. Ct. 891, CHIN BAK KAN ▼. UNITED STATES.

Lack in complaint of positive averments of facts and as to official character of person making it does not deprive United States Commissioner of jurisdiction to determine right of Chinese laborer to remain in United States.

Approved in Ah How v. United States, 193 U. S. 77, 48 L. Ed. 623, 24 Sup. Ct. 357, formal complaint or pleadings not required under Chinese Exclusion Act.

Congress may empower United States Commissioner to determine facts in Chinese deportation proceeding, and in so doing he acts judicially. Approved in Ah Sou v. United States, 200 U. S. 611, 50 L. Ed. 619, 26 Sup. Ct. 752, and United States v. Coe, 196 U. S. 636, 49 L. Ed. 629, 25 Sup. Ct. 794, both following rule; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 261, 49 L. Ed. 1043, 25 Sup. Ct. 644, decision of Department no less final when citizenship is claimed than when domicile and belonging to class excepted is claimed; United States v. Williams, 194 U. S. 290, 48 L. Ed. 984, 24 Sup. Ct. 719, upholding power of Congress to regulate exclusion and deportation of alien anarchists through executive officers; Re United States, 194 U. S. 198, 48 L. Ed. 933, 24 Sup. Ct. 629, appeal to "the judge of the District Court of the district" means appeal to the District Court, and not district judge as an individual; Tom Hong v. United States, 193 U. S. 522, 48 L. Ed. 774, 24 Sup. Ct. 517, reversing order for deportation of Chinese laborers where examination of record discloses proof that they were bona fide merchants; Ah How v. United States, 193 U. S. 75, 76, 48 L. Ed. 622, 24 Sup. Ct. 357, act of May 5, 1892, imposing burden of proving right to remain in United States on alien, not inconsistent with Chinese treaty of 1894; Lee Yuen Sue v. United States, 146 Fed. 671, 673, 77 C. C. A. 96, burden of proving citizenship is on Chinese, and mere assertion of citizenship insufficient; Yee Et Ep) v. United States, 222 Fed. 67, 137 C. C. A. 537, Wong Keow v. United States, 215 Fed. 97, 131 C. C. A. 403, Moy Guey Lum v. United States, 211 Fed. 94, 127 C. C. A. 515, Gong Nom Wood v. United States, 191 Fed. 830, 112 C. C. A. 344, Chu King Fon v. United States, 191 Fed. 823, 112 C. C. A. 336, Lee Lew Yon v. United States, 230 Fed. 821, all upholding finding of commissioner approved by District Court; Ex parte Wong Yee Toon, 227 Fed. 250, and Guan Lee v. United States, 198 Fed. 598, 117 C. C. A. 304, both upholding order of deportation; You Fook Hing v. United States, 214 Fed. 78, 130 C. C. A. 517, commissioner's certificate that Chinese had full hearing and was adjudged lawfully within United States as citizen is not evidence of such facts in subsequent deportation proceeding; Ex parte Jim Hong, 211 Fed. 77, 78, 127 C. C. A. 569, holding commissioner could require amendment to complaint in deportation proceeding to cure defect; Hong Yon v. United States, 164 Fed. 330, 90 C. C. A. 542, and Wong Chun v. United States, 170 Fed. 184, 95 C. C. A. 198, both upholding findings of commissioners; Leo Lung On v. United States, 159 Fed. 126, 86 C. C. A. 513, holding judgment of District Court on appeal in deportation proceeding reviewable only on appeal; Mar Sing v. United States, 137 Fed. 877, 70 C. C. A. 213, Circuit Court of Appeals will not interfere with judgment of commissioner and District Court ordering deportation unless case clearly shows error; United States v. Hung Chang, 134 Fed. 24, 67 C. C. A. 93, power of Congress to provide for exclusion

1115

CHIN BAK KAN v. UNITED STATES. 186 U. S. 193-201

and expulsion of aliens, includes arrest and detention by executive officials pending inquiry; United States v. Fah Chung, 132 Fed. 112, whether Chinese ordered deported shall be admitted to bail pending appeal, rests in discretion of court; Tsoi Yii v. United States, 129 Fed. 587, 64 C. C. A. 153, decision of District Court affirming decision of commissioner ordering deportation is final judgment reviewable by Circuit Court of Appeals; In re Sing Tuck, 126 Fed. 393, 397, 398, 399, holding inspector's finding against citizenship of Chinese is conclusive; In re Ong Lung, 125 Fed. 814, holding under section 5, Chinese Exclusion Act of 1892, Chinese applying for writ of habeas corpus in the first instance after refusal to admit not entitled to bail; In re Moy Quong Shing, 125 Fed. 642, holding under act of February 14, 1903, Department of Labor has jurisdiction to determine whether Chinese seeking admission was born in United States; United States v. Lue Yee, 124 Fed. 303, holding finding of collector refusing Chinese admission is conclusive on fact of being unlawfully in this country; In re Chin Ark Wing, 115 Fed. 414, holding where Chinese appeals to district judge from decision of commissioner without objecting to findings, court has jurisdiction as on appeal or original proceeding; Ramsey v. Flowers, 72 Ark. 318, 80 S. W. 147, United States commissioner, being quasi-judicial tribunal, on hearing of one arrested for illicit distilling, certified copy of record admissible in evidence; dissenting opinion in United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 167, 173, 180, 48 L. Ed. 920, 24 Sup. Ct. 621, majority holding a finding of immigration officer on question of citizenship will not be interfered with until after final decision by Secretary of Commerce and labor; dissenting opinion in Ark Foo v. United States, 128 Fed. 700, 63 C. C. A. 249, majority holding failure of defendant to take the stand is not sufficient to justify deportation.

Distinguished in Lew Ling Chong v. United States, 222 Fed. 199, 200, 137 C. C. A. 635, holding on appeal from decree affirming order of deportation of Chinese, findings that he was unlawfully in United States did not preclude review of facts.

Citizenship is not to be conceded to those claiming it under pressure of particular exigency.

Approved in United States v. Sing Lee, 125 Fed. 629, holding findings of commissioner against right of Chinese person to remain justified by evidence.

Under act of May 5, 1892, Chinese person is required to establish by affirmative proof his right to remain in United States.

Approved in United States v. Hom Lim, 214 Fed. 461, contradictory statements of Chinese as to his status may be used against him on deportation proceedings; United States v. Chin Tong, 192 Fed. 487, 112 C. C. A. 647, holding Chinese claiming to be citizen was entitled to opportunity to make proof; Yee Ging v. United States, 190 Fed. 271, 272, upholding order of deportation when defendant claimed to be citizen; Lim Sam v. United States, 189 Fed. 537, holding evidence failed to im

96

« ForrigeFortsett »