The San Francisco call., 1897-12-07

motion to set aside the decision of the
Supreme Court of July g. and then handed
down lengthy opinion reversing the de-
cision. His opinion, boiled down, is as
follows:
The contention brought was that the State
court had no right to award the estate OF
Thomas II. Bly, the 10 non-resident alien who
is ineligible to become a naturaliZed citizen
of the United States; that under settled rule
OF pr Opertv in existence in this State at the
death of Thomas w. Blythe and desce ndau
caste, the compiainants were his heiFs-at-Iaw,
and the title to the real es tate rested in them
coInteState on the death of Blythe, and no
court could afterward divest that title and
YES it in another; that this court is not pre-
cluded by the decision Of the state Supreme
Court made in 1892 in the case OF Blylne VS..
Ayres.
The claim that the Superior Court of the
Stale had no jurisdiction 10 award the estate
OF Thomas II. Blythe TO the defendant, be-
cause his death she was nonresident alien
and Ineligible TO become q naturalized citizen,
appears TO involve Il Federal question, for The
reason that the ineligibility OF a nonresident
alien to hold property in tie United States is a
matter OF treaty reputation between the Fed
eral Government and foreign powers, and the
States are forbidden to enter into any treaty
stipulations. This naturally leaves the ques-
ton of inheritance to be determined by the
State law and State courts The novel doc
irine that in The absence of treaty regula tions
upon the subject the right OF an alien to in
herit does not exist and the courts of the
State otherwise competent TO pass upon this
question are WllnOuL 1urlSulCtlOn. cannot De
entertained at this period OF our judicial his
tory. Some consideration must be given to
the fact that retofore this whole ques tlon
OF inheritance has by judicial acqulescence
been left 10 the jurisdiction of the States and
become general rule of property right.
The other propositions contended for Dy
the com plainants are, for the same reason
deemed insufficient to take this case out of the
general rule that, after court of the State,
with iull jurisdiction over property in its pos
session, has finally determined all rights to
that property. court OF the United States will
not entertain Jurisdiction to annul SUI ch de-
cree and disturb rights once definitely deter
mined.
But there is still another reason why this
action cannot be maintained. 1t appears from
the bill of complaint that when the original
Dill was filed neither party was in possession
OF the land In controversy, but that 1t was in
the hands of public administrator. 1t fol =
lows that while the possession of the admins
traitor contln ued, no decree for the possess ion
of the real property in his custody could have
entered Ill favor OF the complainants. IS.
But IL: appears that the next day after the
Ming OF the original bill the defendant, Flor
ence, secured possession of the property, and
she has ever since continued in possession OF
the same. she was. therefore, in possession
when the second amended and supplemental
bill was filed, and suit of ejectment wouid
have afforded a plain, adequate and compile te
remedy. As tAe view here taken of this feG {.
ure Oh the case disposes OF the motion TO dis
IN iss the bill it will not be necessary to con
slider the question of parties and diverse citi'
zenship.
The bill OF complaint will be dis missed.
This disposes of what was considered
the last play of the lawyers for the Thomas
Blythe Company and leaves the fortune
with Florence unless the irIepressible at
torneys have still another move left.