SNYDER
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a revenue forfeiture action against goods, the Supreme Court held that while such informations are civil in nature and subject to appellate review, they retain sufficient criminal characteristics to invoke the rule that a general verdict on multiple counts must be upheld if at least one count is valid. The Court affirmed the judgment where the jury's verdict, though poorly expressed, clearly indicated the jury's findings on the submitted issue.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language, and continued:
Informations under the revenue laivs for the forfeiture of goods, seeking no judgment of fine or imprisonment against any person, are not strictly criminal cases, in which the decisions of the Circuit Court are final, unless a division of opinion is certified ; but they are civil actions, of which this court has jurisdiction in error, without regatd to the sum or value in dispute. Rev. Stat. § 699; Pettigrew v. United States, 97 U. S. 385. Yet, as has been expressly adjudged, they are so far in the nature of criminal proceedings, as to come within the rule that a general verdict, upon several counts seeking in different forms one object, must be upheld if one count is good. Clifton v. United States, 4 How. 242, 250. As one of the counts in this case is admitted to 'be good, it is unnecessary to consider the objections taken to the other counts.
The verdict, though expressed in bad English, clearly manifested the intention and finding of the jury upon the issue submitted to them, and the court rightly gave judgment upon it. Rev. Stat. § 954; Parks v. Turner, 12 How. 39, 46 ; Lincoln v. Iron Co., 103 U. S. 412.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Long v. State, 42 Fla. 612 (Fla. 1900)…, 1 South. Rep. 174. If the intention is clearly manifested, bad spelling or faulty grammar will not vitiate the verdict. State v. McNamara, 100 Mo. 100, 13 S. W. Rep. 938; State v. Wilson, 40 La. Ann. 751, 5 South. Rep. 52; Snyder v. United States, 112 U. S. 216, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118. We are of the opinion that the verdict rendered in this case originating under statute prior to the adoption of the Revised Statutes is sufficient to authorize the sentence of the court. The second error assigned is that the c…
-
Johnie Johns v. State, 46 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1903)…ssigned. “A verdict will not be held void merely because expressed in bad English if it clearly manifests the intention and finding of the jury upon the issues submitted to them.” 2 Thompson on Trials, section 2644- Also see Snyder v. United States, 112 U. S. 216, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118; Abbott’s Trial Brief (Criminal Causes), 2nd ed., 722, and authorities there cited. The spelling of the word “we” in said verdict is no more open to attack than the spelling of the word “recommend” therein, of which defendant ha…
-
Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1969)…e of anything in the record to show the contrary, the presumption of law is that the court awarded sentence on the good count only. Locke v. United States, 7 Cranch 339, 344; Clifton v. United States, 4 How. [*613] 242, 250; Snyder v. United States, 112 U. S. 216; Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, 609; 1 Bishop Crim. Pro. § 1015; Wharton Crim. Pl. & Pract. § 771.” Many years later, in Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109 (1959), the Court was equally clear. There the defendant was indicted in five counts…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clifton v. The United States, 4 How. 242 (U.S. 1846)
- Parks v. Sumpter Turner and Henry Renshaw, 12 How. 39 (U.S. 1851)
- Lincoln v. Iron Co., 103 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1880)
- Pettigrew v. United States, 97 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1878)