Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Haven & Hartford Railroad Company for non-delivery of a bale of rags. Davis, Director General of Railroads and Agent under the Transportation Act, was substituted as defendant below, and in this court was succeeded by the petitioner Mellon.

Mr. Arthur W. Blackman for petitioner.

Mr. John W. Keith, with whom Mr. Benjamin Rabalsky was on brief, for respondent.

Mr. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In November, 1918, while the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad was under federal control, a bale of rags was received for shipment to Louis Cutler, the owner. The reasonable time for delivery expired in December, 1918. The rags were never delivered. Cutler assigned his claim for damages to Nominsky. In May, 1919, the latter commenced this action thereon in a state court of Massachusetts. Because he named the Railroad Company as sole defendant, the action was dismissed by the trial court. In June, 1921, that judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court. Nominsky v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 239 Mass. 254. See Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554. In January, 1922, the writ and declaration were, by leave of the trial court, amended under § 206(a), Transportation Act, 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 456, 461, by substituting as defendant Davis, Agent and Director General. The summons was immediately served upon him. Later, Nominsky died. Weiss, his administrator, was substituted as plaintiff.

Davis, appearing specially to object to the jurisdiction of the court over him, asked that the suit be dismissed. Without waiving that objection, he asked for judgment upon the following among other grounds. The shipment

565

Opinion of the Court.

had been made on an order bill of lading which provided that: "Suits for loss, damage, or delay shall be instituted only within two years and one day after delivery of the property, or, in case of failure to make delivery, then within two years and one day after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed." Davis claimed that, although the substitution of him as defendant was made within two years from the termination of federal control, the action was barred by the bill of lading, because the substitution was not made until after two years and one day from the lapse of the reasonable time for delivery. The objection was overruled by the trial court; and it entered judgment for the plaintiff. The Appellate Division ordered judgment for the defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed that order and directed the trial court to enter judgment for the plaintiff. Weiss v. Director General of Railroads, 250 Mass. 12. This Court granted a writ of certiorari, 267 U. S. 588, on January 26, 1925.

Since then, Davis v. L. L. Cohen & Co., Inc., 268 U. S. 638, 640, 642, has settled that a suit against a railroad company is not a suit against the Director General; that § 206(d) of Transportation Act, 1920, authorized substitution of the designated Agent as defendant only in a suit which had been brought during federal control against the Director General; and that in a suit against a railroad company pending at the termination of federal control an amendment of the writ and declaration by substituting as defendant the designated Agent is to be deemed the commencement of a new and independent proceeding to enforce the liability of the Government. Applying that rule, there was in the case at bar no suit to enforce the Government's liability pending at the termination of federal control. The order substituting the Agent was not made until more than two years and a day after the cause of action arose; and as such an order of substitution is held to be the commencement of a new and independent

Argument for Petitioners.

270 U.S.

proceeding, it follows that the suit is barred by the terms of the bill of lading.

Other objections made by the defendant to the action of the state court need not be considered.

Reversed.

TUTUN v. UNITED STATES.

NEUBERGER v. UNITED STATES.

ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS.

Nos. 762, 824. Argued March 3, 1926-Decided April 12, 1926. 1. An order of the District Court granting or denying a petition for naturalization is a final decision within the meaning of Jud. Code § 128. P. 575.

2. Whenever the law provides a remedy enforceable in the federal courts according to the regular course of legal procedure, and that remedy is pursued, there arises a case " within the meaning of the Constitution, Art. III, § 2, whether the subject of the litigation be property or status. P. 576.

3. A petition for naturalization is a "case" within the meaning of Jud. Code § 128, and an order of the District Court denying the petition is reviewable by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Pp. 577, 578.

RESPONSE to questions certified by Circuit Courts of Appeals in naturalization proceedings.

Mr. Louis Marshall, with whom Messrs. William H. Lewis, Matthew M. Levy, and Eugene Untermyer were on the brief, for petitioners.

66

A final decision of a United States district court rendered in a naturalization proceeding is appealable because such a proceeding is a case" within the meaning of the Judicial Code. Such a proceeding must be regarded as a "case" in the constitutional and statutory sense of the term; otherwise our courts, from the lowest to the highest, in passing upon hundreds of thousands of

568

Argument for Petitioners.

such proceedings would have acted extrajudicially. That would be in direct contravention of the rule laid down in Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40; Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. 697; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm., 215 U. S. 216; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346; Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167; In re Pacific Ry. Comm., 32 Fed. 241.

The power to naturalize is judicial and not ministerial or clerical and cannot be delegated. That naturalization is a judicial proceeding is well settled. Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Pet. 393; Dolan v. United States, 133 Fed. 440; Re Symanowsski, 168 Fed. 978; McCarthy v. Marsh, 5 N. Y. 263; Matter of Clark, 18 Barb. 444.

An order admitting an alien to citizenship has been repeatedly declared to be a judgment of the same dignity as any other judgment of a court having jurisdiction. It is an adjudication on personal status. Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Pet. 393; Campbell v. Gordon, 6 Cr. 176; Stark v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 7 Cr. 420; Chas. Green's Son v. Salas, 31 Fed. 106; United States v. Norsch, 42 Fed. 417; United States v. Aakervik, 180 Fed. 137; Tinn v. District Attorney, 148 Cal. 773; Scott v. Strobach, 49 Ala. 477; In re An Alien, 7 Hill 137; United States v. Gleason, 78 Fed. 396, af. 90 Fed. 778; In re Bodek, 63 Fed. 813.

Whenever the claim or contention of a party takes such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting upon it, then it has become a case or controversy within the meaning of these terms as used in the Constitution. Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167; United States v. Lenore, 207 Fed. 865; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264. The judicial power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States and the treaties made by their authority. Chisholm v. Georgia,

Argument for Petitioners.

270 U.S.

2 Dall. 419. A case arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States whenever its correct decision depends upon the right construction of either. Nashville v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247. A controversy as to rights claimed under an Act of Congress falls within the third clause of Rev. Stats., § 709, as a case wherein a title or right is claimed under a statute of the United States. Telluride Power Co. v. Rio Grande Ry., 175 U. S. 639. See also Cooke v. Avery, 147 U. S. 375; Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447.

We call attention to a large number of instances in which various of the circuit courts of appeals, as well as this Court, have entertained appellate jurisdiction with respect to judgments in naturalization proceedings where. cases have been brought up either by the petitioner or the United States on writ of error or by appeal. See United States v. Lenore, 207 Fed. 865.

It was not necessary for Congress to provide in the Naturalization Law for a direct review in order that final decisions of a district court in naturalization proceedings may be appealable. United States v. Ness, 245 U. S. 319, is not authority for such a proposition.

Section 15 of the Naturalization Act of 1906 provides for a method, at the suit of the Government, of cancellation of naturalization certificates illegally obtained. As shown above, numerous appeals have been taken in such proceedings. There is nothing in this section which expressly authorizes such appeals. Yet the right of either party to appeal from a final decision in such a proceeding does not seem to be questioned. It is submitted that there is no difference in substance between such a proceeding and the criginal proceeding for naturalization, and if an appeal is proper in one case, it must be proper in the other.

The right to become a citizen is a matter of the utmost moment to the petitioner in naturalization proceedings.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »