United States v. Fox

E.D. New York

United States v. Fox

14 F.2d 242, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1309

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedMay 12, 1926

DocketNo. 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 F.2d 242 (United States v. Fox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Fox, 14 F.2d 242, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1309 (E.D.N.Y. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This is an action in equity to set aside, cancel, and declare void a certificate of naturalization granted by the Supreme Court of the state of New York. The applicant, a resident of Queens county, filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen in Kings county, state of New York. On the 29th day of May, 1924, the applicant appeared before the -Supreme Court, state of New York, county of Queens, and was admitted to citizenship, despite the protest of the naturalization examiner that the applicant’s declaration of intention was filed in the wrong county.

The question presented is whether this court has the power to set aside a certificate of naturalization granted by the Supreme Court of the state of New York, whose jurisdiction in such matters was coordinate with this court. A declaration of intention filed in the wrong jurisdiction is a nullity as far as conferring jurisdiction under the naturalization statute is concerned. Petition of Briese (D. C.) 267 F. 600; United States v. Koopmans (D. C.) 290 F. 545. My associate, Judge Campbell, in a learned opinion in United States v. Koopmans, supra, decided:

“There seems to be but little argument with reference to the first question, for, while it is true that there have been one or two decisions which would seem to hold that this court did not have jurisdiction to set aside a certificate granted by a state court, yet the great weight of authority is to the contrary, because it has been held in many cases in the United States Courts that, where a certificate of naturalization is illegally granted by a state court, a District Court of the United States for the District witbin which the naturalized citizen resides has jurisdiction at the instance of the United States to cancel and vacate it. U. S. v. Nisbet (D. C.) 168 F. 1005; U. S. v. Mansour (D. C.) 170 F. 671; U. S. v. Simon (C. C.) 170 F. 680; U. S. v. Meyer (D. C.) 170 F. 983; U. S. v. Spohrer (C. C.) 175 F. 440; U. S. v. Aakervik (D. C.) 180 F. 137; U. S. v. Nopoulos (D. C.) 225 F. 656; U. S. v. Griminger (D. C.) 236 F. 285.”

I therefore find that the certificate of naturalization was illegally obtained and should be set aside.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This is an action in equity to set aside, cancel, and declare void a certificate of naturalization granted by the Supreme Court of the state of New York. The applicant, a resident of Queens county, filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen in Kings county, state of New York. On the 29th day of May, 1924, the applicant appeared before the -Supreme Court, state of New York, county of Queens, and was admitted to citizenship, despite the protest of the naturalization examiner that the applicant’s declaration of intention was filed in the wrong county.

The question presented is whether this court has the power to set aside a certificate of naturalization granted by the Supreme Court of the state of New York, whose jurisdiction in such matters was coordinate with this court. A declaration of intention filed in the wrong jurisdiction is a nullity as far as conferring jurisdiction under the naturalization statute is concerned. Petition of Briese (D. C.) 267 F. 600; United States v. Koopmans (D. C.) 290 F. 545. My associate, Judge Campbell, in a learned opinion in United States v. Koopmans, supra, decided:

“There seems to be but little argument with reference to the first question, for, while it is true that there have been one or two decisions which would seem to hold that this court did not have jurisdiction to set aside a certificate granted by a state court, yet the great weight of authority is to the contrary, because it has been held in many cases in the United States Courts that, where a certificate of naturalization is illegally granted by a state court, a District Court of the United States for the District witbin which the naturalized citizen resides has jurisdiction at the instance of the United States to cancel and vacate it. U. S. v. Nisbet (D. C.) 168 F. 1005; U. S. v. Mansour (D. C.) 170 F. 671; U. S. v. Simon (C. C.) 170 F. 680; U. S. v. Meyer (D. C.) 170 F. 983; U. S. v. Spohrer (C. C.) 175 F. 440; U. S. v. Aakervik (D. C.) 180 F. 137; U. S. v. Nopoulos (D. C.) 225 F. 656; U. S. v. Griminger (D. C.) 236 F. 285.”

I therefore find that the certificate of naturalization was illegally obtained and should be set aside.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 F.2d 242, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fox-nyed-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack