Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Yeung How, Sometimes Known as Yeung Chow, Appellant, v. Hart H. North, United States Commissioner of Immigration, etc., et al., 1911 — 223 U.S. 705 · caselaw · US
General
Yeung How, Sometimes Known as Yeung Chow, Appellant, v. Hart H. North, United States Commissioner of Immigration, etc., et al.
223 U.S. 705·Supreme Court of the United States·1911
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 524.
Yeung How, Sometimes Known as Yeung Chow, Appellant, v. Hart H. North, United States Commissioner of Immigration, etc., et al.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District' of California.
Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 9, 1911.
Decided October 23, 1911.
Mr. Carroll Cook, Mr. Arthur A. Birney and Mr. Henry F. Woodard for the appellant. The Attorney General, The Solicitor General, and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harr for the appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 100; David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U. S. 610; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 716; § 14 of act of May 6, 1882, 22 Stat. 61.