United States ex rel. Betty v. Day
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Per curiam
It is settled law in these statutes that the residence of the father is not imputed to the child, like domicile. Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U. S. 228, 45 S. Ct. 257, 69 L. Ed. 585; U. S. ex rel. Patton v. Tod (C. C. A.) 297 F. 385. Therefore, when the alien entered, ho was not already a citizen. This had also been held under Revised Statutes, §' 2172, 8 USCA § 7, in Zartarian v. Billings, 204 U. S. 170, 27 S. Ct. 182, 51 L. Ed. 428, where indeed it was plainer, because an infant could scarcely have been said to “dwell” in the United States, even if the residence of his father was imputed to him. The…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kaplan v. TodSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Zartarian v. BillingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- United States ex rel. Patton v. TodCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Peck v. YoungNew York Supreme Court · 1841
3Cited by7 opinions
- BAUERBoard of Immigration Appeals · 1963
- Acheson, Secretary of State v. AlbertCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
- Wong Foong v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1934
- Sarmiento v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
- Cupp v. BaronDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2020
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.