PEOPLE v. YEIZO IKEDA (1947)

This is an appeal from a judgment determining the escheat of two parcels of agricultural land to the State of California under the Alien Land Law. (1 Deering's Gen.Laws, Act 261.) In the briefs certain constitutional questions and the statute of limitations are argued by appellants, but on the oral argument it was conceded that those questions are now foreclosed by the recent case of People v. Oyama, 29 Cal.2d 164, 173 P.2d 794. The only question remaining is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment.

The evidence shows that appellants Yeizo and Satsuka Ikeda, husband and wife, are aliens ineligible for citizenship. Appellant Atsuko Ikeda, their daughter, is a citizen of this country and at the time of trial was 23 years of age.

In 1928 Florence and Clarkson Dye executed a deed to Shizo and Mitsua Ikeda (no relation to appellants) who are American citizens, conveying to them a tract of agricultural land of approximately 170 acres. The consideration for the purchase of 56 acres of this tract was furnished by appellants Yeizo and Satsuka Ikeda. This 56 acres was in 1934 conveyed by Shizo and Mitsua Ikeda to Toshi Hanazono, also a citizen of this country. In 1939 F. Cook and Sterling Carr conveyed a second parcel of agricultural land to Toshi Hanazono, the consideration for this conveyance also being paid by Yeizo and Satsuka Ikeda. The Ikeda family moved onto the larger of the two tracts and Yeizo managed and farmed them until the family was evacuated in the early stages of the recent war with Japan.

It was the testimony of Yeizo and Satsuka Ikeda that they purchased both tracts of land for their daughter Atsuko, that they consulted a lawyer who suggested that Mrs. Hanazono should make a deed to Atsuko, which he said he would record as soon as Atsuko reached the age of 21. This attorney had died before the time of trial but a deed from Mrs. Hanazono to Atsuko was found in his files and produced at the trial. They further testified that shortly before their evacuation they went to this attorney's office and found that he had removed to San Francisco, leaving his practice in the hands of another attorney and that this second attorney on learning that Atsuko was still a minor told them to come back when Atsuko reached the age of 21 and he would then record the deed. They also testified that they did not intend the transactions as a subterfuge to evade the Alien Land Law but left the details of the transactions to their lawyer, and followed his advice. Much of this testimony was corroborated by Atsuko.

Mrs. Hanazono testified that she held the property for Atsuko, received none of the revenue from it, but paid the taxes including income taxes and was reimbursed by the Ikedas.

A neighbor testified to conversations with Yeizo Ikeda in which he referred to the property as ‘his property’, ‘his land’ or ‘his place’. No guardian was ever appointed for Atsuko, no formal accounting of the income from the property was ever made to Atsuko by her parents, the annual reports required by section 5 of the Alien Land Law were never filed by Mrs. Hanazono, Atsuko's parents or any one else, and the Ikeda family from the time they were acquired received its support from the proceeds of these lands. The properties were actually conveyed to Atsuko only after the filing of the complaint in this action.

The inferences to be drawn from these facts lay in the trial court's discretion. The conduct of the parties after the acquisition of the property was certainly equivocal and may be considered in determining the purpose and intent of the alien parents in its acquisition, Longway v. Newbery, 13 Cal.2d 603, 611–612, 91 P.2d 110; Jarkieh v. Badagliacco, 75 Cal.App.2d 505, 170 P.2d 994; and the trial court's conclusion finds additional support in the presumption created by section 9(a) of the Alien Land Law, which declares that a prima facie presumption of an intent to violate the act shall arise upon proof of the taking of the property in the name of an eligible person ‘if the consideration is paid or agreed or understood to be paid by an alien mentioned in section two hereof.’ On facts certainly no stronger than those established here the court held in People v. Oyama, supra, that the findings of a violation of the statute were ‘fully supported by the evidence.’ 29 Cal.2d at page ___, 173 P.2d 794, 800.

Judgment affirmed.

DOOLING, Justice.

NOURSE, P. J., and GOODELL, J., concur.