Mar Fow Lun v. Nagle

Ninth Circuit

Mar Fow Lun v. Nagle

27 F.2d 129, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3349

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 1928

DocketNo. 5397

StatusPublished

This text of 27 F.2d 129 (Mar Fow Lun v. Nagle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mar Fow Lun v. Nagle, 27 F.2d 129, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3349 (9th Cir. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

The sole question presented for decision on the present appeal is this: Was the adopted son of a native-born citizen of the United States, both belonging to the Chinese race, entitled to be admitted to this country prior to the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1924 (8 US-CA § 145 et seq.). Upon this question there is a direct conflict of authority. In United States v. Pierce, 285 F. 663, Judge Learned Hand, sitting in the District Court, decided in favor of the right of admission, and his decision was followed and approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Johnson v. Shue Hong, 300 F. 89. On the other hand, in White v. Kwock Sue Lum, 291 F. 732, this court reached the opposite conclusion. An attempt is made to distinguish the latter ease from the cases cited and from the present case, but we find no solid basis for the distinction, and a majority of the court adhere to the rule heretofore announced by this court. Aside from the apparent hardship incident to the case, the question is no longer of general importance, because it is put at rest by the Immigration Act of 1924,

The order is affirmed.

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

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

The sole question presented for decision on the present appeal is this: Was the adopted son of a native-born citizen of the United States, both belonging to the Chinese race, entitled to be admitted to this country prior to the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1924 (8 US-CA § 145 et seq.). Upon this question there is a direct conflict of authority. In United States v. Pierce, 285 F. 663, Judge Learned Hand, sitting in the District Court, decided in favor of the right of admission, and his decision was followed and approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Johnson v. Shue Hong, 300 F. 89. On the other hand, in White v. Kwock Sue Lum, 291 F. 732, this court reached the opposite conclusion. An attempt is made to distinguish the latter ease from the cases cited and from the present case, but we find no solid basis for the distinction, and a majority of the court adhere to the rule heretofore announced by this court. Aside from the apparent hardship incident to the case, the question is no longer of general importance, because it is put at rest by the Immigration Act of 1924,

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F.2d 129, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mar-fow-lun-v-nagle-ca9-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack