Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 199 (1922)

Overview
Opinions

Syllabus

U.S. Supreme Court

Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 199 (1922)

Yamashita v. Hinkle

No. 177

Argued October 3, 4, 1922

Decided November 13, 1922

260 U.S. 199

Opinions

Opinions & Dissents

U.S. Supreme Court

Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 199 (1922) Yamashita v. Hinkle
No. 177
Argued October 3, 4, 1922
Decided November 13, 1922
260 U.S. 199

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Syllabus

1. Persons of the Japanese race, born in Japan, are not entitled, under Rev.Stats., § 2169, to become naturalized citizens of the United States. P. 260 U. S. 200. Ozawa v. United States, ante, 260 U. S. 178.

2. A judgment purporting to naturalize persons whose ineligibility appears on its face is without jurisdiction, and void. P. 260 U. S. 201.

Affirmed.

Certiorari to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington which denied the application of the petitioners for a writ of mandamus to require the respondent, as Secretary of the State of Washington, to receive and file their articles of incorporation. This case was argued with Ozawa v. United States, ante, 260 U. S. 178.

Page 260 U. S. 200

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents one of the questions involved in the case of Takao Ozawa v. United States, ante, 260 U. S. 178, viz.: are the petitioners, being persons of the Japanese race born in Japan, entitled to naturalization under § 2169 of the Revised Statutes of the United States?

Certificates of naturalization were issued to both petitioners by a superior court of the State of Washington prior to 1906, when § 2169 is conceded to have been in full force and effect.

The respondent, as Secretary of the State of Washington, refused to receive and file articles of incorporation of the Japanese Real Estate Holding Company, executed by petitioners, upon the ground that, being of the Japanese race, they were not at the time of their naturalization and never had been entitled to naturalization under the laws of the United States, and were therefore not qualified under the laws of the State of Washington to form the corporation proposed, or to file articles naming them as sole trustees of said corporation. Thereupon petitioners applied to the supreme court of the state for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to receive and file the articles of incorporation, but that court refused, and petitioners bring the case here by writ of certiorari.

Upon the authority of Takao Ozawa v. United States, supra, we must hold that the petitioners were not eligible to naturalization, and, as this ineligibility appeared upon the face of the judgment of the superior court admitting petitioners to citizenship, that court was without jurisdiction,

Page 260 U. S. 201

and its judgment was void. In re Gee Hop, 71 F. 274; In re Yamashita, 30 Wash. 234.

The judgment of the supreme court of the State of Washington is therefore

Affirmed.

Search This Case

Google Scholar

Google Books

Google Web

Google News