TAKUJI YAMASHITA ET AL.
v.
HINKLE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Japanese nationals born in Japan sought to incorporate a real estate company in Washington state after receiving naturalization certificates from a Washington court, but the Secretary of State refused to file their incorporation articles on grounds that they were ineligible for naturalization. The Supreme Court held that persons of Japanese race were not eligible for naturalization under federal law, rendering the prior naturalization certificates void, and therefore affirmed the state's refusal to recognize their status as citizens for purposes of incorporating a business.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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, this day decided,. ante, 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 State of the State of Washington, refused to receive and file articles óf 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 á 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 and its judgment was void. In re Gee Hop, 71 Fed. 274; In re Yamashita, 30 Wash. 234.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1934)…” R.S. § 2169; 8 U.S.C. § 359. “ White persons ” within the meaning of the statute are members of the Caucasian race, as Caucasian is defined in' the understanding of the mass of men. Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178; Yamashita v. United States, 260 U.S. 199; United States v. Thind, 261 U.S. 204, 214; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197; Porterfield v. Webb, 263 U.S. 225; Webb v. O’Brien, 263 U.S. 313; Cockrill v. California, 268 U.S. 258. The term [*86] excludes the Chinese (United States v. Wong Kim Ark…
-
Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1924)
-
In re Fisher (N.D. Cal. 1927)…y are not white persons, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. See latest cases of United States v. Thind, 261 U. S. 204, 43 S. Ct. 338, 67 L. Ed. 616, and Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178, 43 S. Ct. 65, 67 L. Ed. 199; Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U. S. 199, 43 S. Ct. 69, 67 L. Ed. 209. Applicant comes within the class of persons of mixed blood. In re Camille (C. C.) 6 F. 256, it was held that a person of half Indian blood, whose father was a white Canadian and his mother an Indian woman, is not a “w…