Chin Fook v. McGrath

S.D. California

Chin Fook v. McGrath

92 F. Supp. 614, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2577

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California

DecidedJuly 13, 1950

DocketCiv. A. No. 29691

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 F. Supp. 614 (Chin Fook v. McGrath) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chin Fook v. McGrath, 92 F. Supp. 614, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2577 (S.D. Cal. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

ERSKINE, District Judge.

Defendants’ motion for denial of a jury trial in this action is hereby granted for the following reasons:

1. A judicial proceeding for declaration of United States nationality under Section 903 of the Nationality Code, 8 U.S. C.A., is essentially a declaratory judgment action, providing a special remedy for a limited class of persons. Like all declaratory judgment actions it is neither legal nor equitable, but sui generis; it is a new form of procedure for deciding -cases both at law and in equity. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407; Borchard, The Fed. Dec. Judg. Act, 21 Virginia Law Review 35, 38. As such it does not fall within the category of “suits at common law” to which the 7th Amendment requirement of a jury trial applies.

2. Since the remedy sought in this action is one given by statute and not by common law, the terms of the statute must be followed. Included in said statute is a provision for the admission of the claimant to the United States “upon the condition that he shall be subject to deportation in case it shall be decided by the court that he is not a national of the .United States.” It seems clear from these words that Congress did not intend to give such a claimant the right to a jury trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ERSKINE, District Judge.

Defendants’ motion for denial of a jury trial in this action is hereby granted for the following reasons:

1. A judicial proceeding for declaration of United States nationality under Section 903 of the Nationality Code, 8 U.S. C.A., is essentially a declaratory judgment action, providing a special remedy for a limited class of persons. Like all declaratory judgment actions it is neither legal nor equitable, but sui generis; it is a new form of procedure for deciding -cases both at law and in equity. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407; Borchard, The Fed. Dec. Judg. Act, 21 Virginia Law Review 35, 38. As such it does not fall within the category of “suits at common law” to which the 7th Amendment requirement of a jury trial applies.

2. Since the remedy sought in this action is one given by statute and not by common law, the terms of the statute must be followed. Included in said statute is a provision for the admission of the claimant to the United States “upon the condition that he shall be subject to deportation in case it shall be decided by the court that he is not a national of the .United States.” It seems clear from these words that Congress did not intend to give such a claimant the right to a jury trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 F. Supp. 614, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chin-fook-v-mcgrath-casd-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack