페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

12, 1902, and on that day defendant filed its | therein, a decree pro confesso was rendered answer, denying all charges of fraud, and set- against him April 21. ting up the written contract between plain- On May 27, 1903, the court rendered a de tiff and itself, which it alleged contained all cree on the cross bill, which recited the varithe terms of the agreement between them, ous proceedings; found the allegations of the whereby defendant agreed to manufacture cross complaint and exhibits to be true; that and ship to plaintiff, and plaintiff purchased Kirby was justly indebted to the American of defendant, a certain soda fountain ma Soda Fountain Company in the sum of $1,chine at the price of $3,219; and defendant 700, with interest; and that a valid mortagreed to take plaintiff's machine in part gage lien to secure that sum existed; and depayment, at the sum of $1,194, leaving a bal. creed payment of the amount within sixty ance of $2,025, which plaintiff agreed to pay, days, and that, if not paid, the property and which was secured by a mortgage lien on should be sold and the proceeds applied, with the property. That defendant manufactured judgment for deficiency, if any. and shipped the machine to plaintiff and set An appeal from this decree was prayed it up in his store, and fully complied with and allowed, and the question of jurisdicthe contract, but plaintiff, after paying $325 tion was certified. The case came on in this on account of the $2,025, failed and refused court on motions to dismiss or affirm. to further comply with the contract or to pay anything more thereon.

Mr. Joseph M. McCormick for appelDefendant said plaintiff ought to take lant. nothing by his suit, and prayed judgment for Mr. John J. Weed for appellee. the sum of $1,700 and for foreclosure of its mortgage lien. Together with its answer * Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the defendant filed its cross complaint, setting opinion of the court: up the facts in detail and praying for judg. This case was brought directly to this ment in the sum of $1,700, and interest, and court on a certificate of jurisdiction under for a decree establishing its mortgage lien 8 5 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891 (26 on the property, and for foreclosure and sale, Stat. at L. 827, chap. 517, U. S. Comp. Stat. and such further relief as equity might re-1901, p. 549) and might, therefore, have been quire.

advanced under rule 32. The motions to disSubpæna on the cross complaint was is. miss or affirin may be treated as equivalent sued and served May 13, 1902.

to submission under that rule, but as the moJune 20, 1902, plaintiff moved to transfer tions were made, and the motion to dismiss the cause to the law docket; and on that date was chiefly rested on the ground that the the following order was entered of record: value of the matter in dispute was not suf"Complainant coming and asking that the ficient to give this court jurisdiction, we original bill of complaint be dismissed with think it proper to say that "the act of 1891 out prejudice, and it*appearing to the court nowhere imposes a pecuniary limit upon the that said request should be granted, it is appellate jurisdiction, either of this court or therefore ordered that the original bill of the circuit court of appeals, from a district complaint herein be and the same is hereby or circuit court of the United States.The dismissed without prejudice to the right of Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 683, 44 L the plaintiff to proceed further on the cause ed. 320, 322, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 290, 293. of action set forth in said bill hereafter as On this appeal no question of error in mathe may be advised. It is further ordered ter of equity procedure in the retaining of that the costs of the original bill and pro- the cross bill after the dismissal of the bill ceedings thereon herein be adjudged against is open for consideration, but we do not incomplainant, for which execution may issue.” timate in the slightest degree that any error

July 24, 1902, plaintiff, as defendant in in that particular was committed. Chicago, the cross complaint, filed his plea thereto, in M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Third Nat. Bank, 134 U. which he averred that the original bill filed S. 276, 33 L. ed. 900, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550; by him had been dismissed, and that the Dan. Ch. Pr. 5th ed. 1553, note; Bates Eq. cross bill was not within the jurisdiction of Proc. § 386. the court because the amount sought to be The contention is that the circuit court recovered did not exceed $2,000, exclusive of had no jurisdiction as a court of the United interest and costs. February 13, 1903, the States to proceed on the cross bill because of plea to the jurisdiction of the court was ar- the lack of the prescribed jurisdictional gued and overruled, and plaintiff, defendant amount. But we think the circuit court was in the cross bill, was ordered to file an an right in rejecting this contention and in swer to said cross bill on or before the rule overruling the plea. day of the court occurring in April, 1903. In the first place, the whole record being No further answer or plea to the cross bill considered, the value of the matter in dishaving been interposed by the defendant'pute miglit well have been held to exceed $2

*143

000, exclusive of interest and costs. Stinson conditions. Morgan v. Morgan, 2 Wheat. v. Dousman, 20 How. 461, 466, 15 L. ed. 966, 290, 4 L. ed. 242; Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 969; New England Mortg. Security Co. v. Pet. 165, I L. ed. 1041; Kanouse v. Martin, Gay, 145 U. S. 123, 131, 36 L. ed. 646, 649, 15 How. 198, 208, 14 L. ed. 660, 664; Rob12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 815; Shappirio v. Goldberg, erts v. Nelson, 8 Blatchf. 74, Fed. Cas. No. 192 U. S. 232, ante, p. 259, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 11,907; Cooke v. United States, 2 Wall. 218, 259; Lovell v. Cragin, 136 U. S. 130, 34 L. 17 L. ed. 755. ed. 372, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1024.

In Morgan v. Morgan it was laid down by In Stinson v. Dousman, the suit was Chief Justice Marshall that the jurisdiction brought to recover something less than $500 of the circuit court, having once vested beas rent of a parcel of land under a written tween citizens of different states, could not contract for the purchase of the land-at $8, be devested by a change of domicil of one of 000, which provided that the covenantee the parties, and his removal into the same should pay rent on failure to comply with state as the adverse party pendente lite. Bundry conditions prescribed, and defendant This was so ruled in Clarke v. Mathewson not only set up in his answer a defense to the and other cases there cited. claim for rent, but also sought a decree af- In Kanouse v. Martin, after petition to refirming the contract as outstanding. It was move had been filed and bond tendered, the objected in this court that the matter in dis- state court allowed the plaintiff to reduce pute was not of the value of $1,000, and that the matter in dispute to less than the juris. therefore there was no jurisdiction. Mr. dictional amount, and went on with the case. Justice Campbell said: “The objection This was necessarily held to be erroneous, might be well founded, if this was to be re- but the observations of Mr. Justice Curtis garded merely as an action at common law. show that, in his opinion, the general rule But the equitable as well as the legal consid to which we have referred also applied, and erations involved in the cause are to be con- he cites Morgan v. Morgan and Clarke v. sidered. The effect of the judgment is to Mathewson. adjust the legal and equitable claims of the In Roberts v. Nelson the amount claimed parties to the subject of the suit. The sub was reduced after the case had been reject of the suit is not merely the amount of moved, and Mr. Justice Blatchford, then disrent claimed, but the title of the respective trict judge, held that the jurisdiction of the parties to the land under the contract. The court having once attached, no subsequent contract shows that the matter in dispute event could devest it. was valued by the parties at $8,000.

In Cooke v. United States, Mr. Chief Jus We think this court has jurisdiction.” The tice Chase said that “jurisdiction once accase is cited and considered in New England quired cannot be taken away by any change Mortg. Security Co. v. Gay and in Shap- in the value of the subject of controversy." pirio v. Goldberg.

This action, when brought in the state In Lowell v. Cragin, it was held as cor court, was an action to recover $1,500 dam. rectly stated in the head notes: “When ages for deceit. Defendant demurred to and the matter set up in a cross bill is directly answered the original petition. Plaintiff responsive to the averments in the bill, and subsequently filed his amended petition seekis directly connected with the transactions ing to be relieved of the obligation to pay which are set up in the bill as the gravamen $2,025, and damages in the sum of $2,500. of the plaintiff's case, the amount claimed The matter in dispute having thus been in the cross bill may be taken into consider-made to exceed the sum or value of $2,000, ation in determining the jurisdiction of this exclusive of interest and costs, defendant court on appeal from a decree on the bill.” presented his petition and bond for removal,

In the present case the circuit court in its and the cause was thereupon removed. The decree referred to the plaintiff's bill and the jurisdiction thus acquired by the circuit relief thereby sought, in connection with the court was not devested by plaintiff's subsecross bill, and, we think, was justified in do quent action. ing this, as the record had not passed from Decree affirmed. under its control, and it was apparent that the decree on the cross bill disposed of the

(194 U. S. 161) contention of plaintiff in respect of the can.

UNITED STATES, Petitioner, celation of the contract. Taking the bill, defendant's answer, and the cross bill to.

SING TUCK or King Do and Thirty-One gether, the jurisdictional amount was made

Others. out.

In the second place, it is the general rule Habeas corpus in Chinese exclusion cases. that when the jurisdiction of a circuit court of the United States has once attached it will Federal courts will not interfere by habeas Dot be ousted by subsequent change in the corpus with the refusal of the right of entry

0.

La bor

•167

*166

Into the United States of Chinese persons al. States under any law or treaty now existing leging citizenship, at least, until after a inal or hereafter made, the decision of the approdecision of the Secretary of Commerce and on the appeal provided for by the priate immigration or customs officers, if ad.

verse to the admission of such alien, shall be act of August 18, 1894 (28 Stat, at L. 390, chap. 301, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1303), final, unless*reversed on appeal to the Secand the act of February 14, 1903 (32 Stat. retary of the Treasury.” The jurisdiction at L. 825, chap. 552), in case of a decision of the Treasury Department was transferred by the immigration officers adverse to the to the Department of Commerce and Labor admission of an allen.

by the act of February 14, 1903 (32 Stat. at [No. 591.)

L. 825, chap. 552). It was held by the circuit

court of appeals that the act of 1894 should Argued April 7, 1904. Decided April 25, not be construed to submit the right of a 1904.

native-born citizen of the United States to

return hither to the final determination of ON N WRIT of Certiorari to the United executive officers, and the conclusion was as

States Circuit Court of Appeals for the sumed to follow that these cases should have Second Circuit to review a judgment which been tried on their merits. Before us it reversed a judgment of the circuit court for was argued that, by the construction of the the Northern District of New York dismiss- statute, the fact of citizenship went to the ing a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into jurisdiction of the immigration oflicers (see a detention of Chinese persons seeking to en. Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1, 7, ante, ter the United States, and claiming citizen. p. 177, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177; Miller y. Hor. ship therein. Reversed.

ton, 152 Mass. 540, 548, 10 L. R. A. 116, 23 The facts are stated in the opinion. Am. St. Rep. 850, 26 N. E. 100), and there

Assistant Attorney General McReynolds fore that the statute did not purport to apfor petitioner.

ply to one who was a citizen in fact. We Messrs. Robert M. Moore and W. W. are of opinion, however, that the words Cantuell for respondents.

quoted apply to a decision on the question

of citizenship, and that, even if it be true * Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion that the statute could not make that deciof the court:

sion final, the consequence drawn by the cir. This is a writ of habeas corpus against a cuit court of appeals does not follow, and is Chinese inspector and inspector of immigra- not correct. tion. It appears from his return that the We shall not argue the meaning of the Chinese persons concerned came from China words of the act. That must be taken to be by way of Canada, and were seeking admis. established. Lem Moon Sing v. United sion into the United States. On examina- States, 158 U. S. 538, 546, 547, 39 L. ed. tion by an inspector five gave their names, | 1082, 1085, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 967. As to stated that they were born in the United whether or not the act could make the deciStates (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, sion of an executive officer final upon the 169 U. S. 649, 42 L. ed. 890, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. fact of citizenship, we leave the question 456), and answered no further questions. where we find it. The Japanese Immigrant The rest gave their names and then stood Case, 189 U. S. 86, 97, 47 L. ed. 721, mute, not even alleging citizenship. The in- 724, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 011; Fok Young spector decided against their right to enter Yo United States, 185 U. S. 296, the country, and informed them of their 304, 305, 46 L. ed. 917, 921, 22 Sup. Ct. right to appeal to the Secretary of Com. Rep. 686. See Chin Bak Kan v. United merce and Labor. No appeal was taken, and States, 186 U. S. 193, 200, 46 L. ed. while they were detained at a properly des- 1121, 1126, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 891. What ignated detention house for return to China, ever may be the law on that point, the dea petition was filed by a lawyer purporting cisions just cited are enough to show that to act on their behalf, alleging that they ali it is too late to contend that the act of 1894 were citizens of the United States, and this is void as a whole. But if the act is valid, writ was obtained. In the circuit court the even if ineffectual on this single point, then detention was adjudged to be lawful, and it points out a mode of procedure which the writ was dismissed without a trial on must be followed before there can be a rethe merits. This decision was reversed by sort to the courts. In order to act at all the circuit court of appeals on the ground the executive officer must decide upon the that the parties concerned were entitled to a question of citizenship. If his jurisdiction judicial investigation of their status. is subject to being upset, still it is necessary

By the act of August 18, 1894, 28 Stat. at that he should proceed if he decides that it L. 390. chap. 301 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, exists. An appeal is provided by the*statp. 1303), "In every case where an alien is ute. The first mode of attacking his deci. excluded from admission into the United'sion is by taking that appeal. If the appeal

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

fails, it then is time enough to consider | ful, even if all these parties were citizens of whether, upon a petition showing reasonable the United States, and were not attempting cause, there ought to be a further trial upon to upset the inspection machinery by a habeas corpus.

transparent device. Wong Wing v. United We perfectly appreciate, while we neither States, 163 U. S. 228, 235, 41 L. ed. 140, 16 countenance nor discountenance, the argu. Sup. Ct. Rep. 977. They were offered a way ment drawn from the alleged want of juris. to prove their alleged citizenship and to be diction. But while the consequence of that set at large, which would be sufficient for argument, if sound, is that both executive most people who had a case, and which officers and Secretary of Commerce and La- would relieve the courts. If they saw fit to bor are acting without authority, it is one refuse that way, they properly were held of the necessities of the administration of down strictly to their technical rights. justice that even fundamental questions But it is said that if, under any circum. should be determined in an orderly way. If stances, the question of citizenship could be the allegations of a petition for habeas cor- left to the final decision of an executive of. pus setting up want of jurisdiction, wheth. ficer, the Chinese regulations made under er of an executive officer or of an ordinary the statutes by the Department of Commerce court, are true, the petitioner theoretically and Labor are such that they do not allow a is entitled to his liberty at once. Yet a citizen due process of law, and the same arsummary interruption of the regular order gument is urged in favor of the right to deof proceedings, by means of the writ, is cline to take any part in such proceedings not always a matter of right. A familiar from the outset. The rules objected to reillustration is that of a person imprisoned quire the officer to prevent communication upon criminal process by a state court, un- with the parties other than by officials under a state law alleged to be unconstitu- der his control, and to have them examined tional. If the law is unconstitutional the promptly touching their right to admission. prisoner is wrongfully held. Yet, except un- The examination is to be apart from the der exceptional circumstances, the courts of public, in the presence of the government ofthe United States do not interfere by habeas ficials and such witnesses only as the examcorpus. The prisoner must, in the first ining officer shall designate. This last is place, take his case to the highest court of the provision especially stigmatized. It is the state to which he can go, and after that said that the parties are allowed to produce he generally is left to the remedy by writ only such witnesses as are designated by the of error if he wishes to bring the case here. officer. But that is a plain perversion of Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U. S. 499, 45 L. the meaning of the words. If the witnesses ed. 639, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 455; Baker v. referred to are not merely witnesses to the Grice, 169 U. S. 284, 42 L. ed. 748, 18 Sup. examination, if they are witnesses in the Ct. Rep. 323. In Gonzales v. Williams, 192 cause, still the provision only excludes such U. s. 1, ante, p. 177, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. witnesses at the discretion of the officer 177, there was no use in delaying the issue pending the examination of the party conof the writ until an appeal had been taken, cerned,

---a natural precaution in this class because in that case there was no dispute of cases, the reasonableness of which does about the facts, but merely a question of not need to be explained. It is common in law. Here the issue, if there is one, is pure ordinary trials. No right is given to the ofmatter of fact,-a claim of citizenship un- ficer to exercise any control or choice as to der circumstances and in a form naturally the witnesses to be heard, and no such choice raising a suspicion of fraud.

was attempted in fact. On the contrary, the Considerations similar to those which we parties were told that if they could produce have suggested lead to a further conclusion. two witnesses who knew that they had the Whatever may be the ultimate rights of a right to enter, their testimony would be person seeking to enter the country, and al- taken and carefully considered; and various leging that he is a citizen, it is within the other attempts were made to induce the sug. power of Congress to provide, at *least, for a gestion of any evidence or help to establish preliminary investigation by an inspector, the parties' case, but they stood mute. The and for a detention of the person until he separate examination is another reasonable has established his citizenship in some rea precaution, and it is required to take place sonable way. If the person satisfies the in- promptly, to avoid the hardship of a long spector, he is allowed to enter the country detention. In case of appeal counsel are without further trial. Now, when these permitted to examine the evidence, Rule 7, Chinese, having that opportunity, saw fit to and it is implied that new evidence, briefs, refuse it, we think an additional reason was affidavits, and statements may be submitted, given for not allowing a habeas corpus at all of which can be forwarded with the apthat stage. The detention during the time peal. Rule 9. The whole scheme is intended necessary for investigation was not unlaw-'to give as fair a chance to prove a right to

*170

01.

[ocr errors]

enter the country as the necessarily sum- United States, neither the immigration acts mary character of the proceedings will per. nor the Chinese exclusion acts prohibiting mit.

persons of the Chinese race, and especially We are of opinion that the attempt to dis. Chinese laborers, from coming into the regard and override the provisions of the United States, apply to such person.” So statutes and the rules of the Department, this court has held at the present term. and to swamp the courts by a resort to them Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1, ante, p. in the first instance, must fail. We may 177, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177, decided January add that, even if it is beyond the power of 4, 1904. In that case it appeared that Isa. Congress to make the decision of the De bella Gonzales, an unmarried woman, compartment final upon the question of citizen- ing from Porto Rico to New York, was preship, we agree with the circuit court of ap-vented from landing, and detained by the impeals that a petition for habeas corpus migration commissioner as an alien immi. ought not to be entertained unless the court grant. A writ of habeas corpus was issued is satisfied that the petitioner can make out on her behalf by the circuit court of the at least a prima facie case. A mere allega- United States for the southern district of tion of citizenship is not enough. But, be- "New York. Upon a hearing the writ was fore the courts can be called upon, the pre- dismissed and she remanded to the custody liminary sifting process provided by the of the commissioner. On appeal to this statutes

must

be gone through with. court that decision was reversed, and it was Whether after that a further trial may be said in the opinion (p. 7, ante, p. 177, 24 had we do not decide.

Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 177): Judgment reversed.

“If she was not an alien immigrant with.

in the intent and meaning of the act of ConMr. Justice Brewer, with whom congress entitled 'An Act in Amendment to the murred Mr. Justice Peckham, dissenting: Various Acts Relative to Immigration and

I am unable to concur in either the fore- the Importation of Aliens Under Contract going opinion or judgment. I have hereto- or Agreeinent to Perform Labor,' approved fore dissented in several cases involving the March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 1084, chap. exclusion or expulsion of the Chinese, but, 551, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1294), the although my views on the questions are un commissioner had no power to detain or dechanged, do not care to repeat anything then port her, and the final order of the circuit said. I pass rather to consider the present court must be reversed.” case and the declarations of the court. That There, as inere, the applicant had not apis, as stated in the opinion, one of persons pealed from the decision of the immigration claiming to be citizens of the United States, officer to the Secretary of the Treasury; denied by an inspector of immigration-a that fact was pleaded in the return to the mere ministerial officer—the right to enter writ, and on the argument before us this act the country, and who are now informed by of August 18, 1894, was cited by the governthis court that their application to the ment, and the argriment made that the remcourts for the enforcement of that right edy was by appeal to the Secretary of the must be denied. They are told that their Treasury. I quote the language of the So only remedy is by appeal from one minis- licitor General as reported (p. 4): terial officer to another.

"The act of August 18, 1894 (28 Stat. at The decision is based upon the act of Au- L. 390, chap. 301, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. gust 18, 1894 (28 Stat. at L. 390, chap. 301, 1303), makes the decision of the appropri. U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1303), which pro- ate immigration or customs officer, if adverse vides :

to the admission of an alien, final unless re"In every case where an alien is excluded versed on appeal to the Secretary of the from admission into the United States un Treasury. Even if appellant herein was ulder any law or treaty now existing or here. timately entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, after made, the decision of the appropriate she was not in a position justly to obtain immigration or customs officers, if adverse the writ until she had prosecuted an un. to the admission of such alien, shall be final, availing appeal to the Secretary of the unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary Treasury, and thus pursued her remedy in of the Treasury."

the executive course to the uttermost.” But by its very terms that act applies That case did not hold that the applicant only to an alien, and these parties assert was a citizen of the United States, but only that they are not aliens. If not aliens, cer- that, being a subject of Porto Rico, an istainly that act is inapplicable. So affirms land ceded to the United States, and, as ad. Rule 2, prescribed by the Secretary of Com judged by a bare majority of this court in merce and Labor, concerning the immigra- contiicting opinions, not within the full tion of Chinese persons, which reads: “If scope of constitutional protection, she was the Chinese person has been born in the 'not an alien immigrant. Here the petition

9

« 이전계속 »