UNITED STATES
v.
MOIST
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.
The defendant was indicted under federal law for mailing letters to execute a fraudulent scheme involving puzzle contests with deceptive prize offers for pianos, but the trial court sustained a demurrer to the indictment without clearly indicating whether it was ruling on a statutory construction issue or merely interpreting the sufficiency of the indictment. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error because the record did not show that the judgment turned on any disputed construction of the statute, making it unnecessary to decide whether the alleged facts constituted a scheme to defraud.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an indictment under § 215 of the Criminal Code of Marché, 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1130, for placing a letter in the post-office for delivery by the post-office establishment for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud. The scheme alleged was to send out puzzle pictures, advertising as a prize for the neatest correct answer a credit order for $350 on a certain piano, one for $300 for the next neatest, and others for $200 for correct answers. Persons answering were to be told that-they were entitled, for instance, to an order for $200 on a-piano sold the world over for $300, which would cost them $75 cash with the order. The credit was to be a pretense, as the piano to be delivered was to be one of a retail price not exceeding the cash received. It was not alleged that the piano was to be worth less'than the cash paid, but, as .is manifest, people were to be led into the dealing by the delusive apparatus of a promise known to be false when made, Durland v. United States, 161 U. S. 306, and false statements as to the value of the piano bought. The indictment was demurred to and the demurrer was sustained.
It will not be necessary to decide whether the facts alleged show a scheme to defraud, since it does not appear on what ground the court acted. As was said in United States v. Carter, ante, pp. 492, 494: “there is nothing in the record showing any request made to the trial court for an expression of opinion in such form as to manifest clearly whether its action proceeded upon a construction of the statute or merely upon the meaning which was given to the indictment.”. As it does not appear that the judgment turned upon any controverted construction of the statute, the writ of error must be dismissed in this case as in that. It is unnecessary to consider whether every determination concerning the common law of fraud taken for granted by the act would be a decision based upon the construction of the statute,, within the meaning of the act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246.
Writ of error dismissed.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Hastings, 296 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1935)…urt will not go beyond those grounds and consider other objections to the indictment. United States v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370, 397, 398; United States v. Miller, 223 U. S. 599, 602; United States v. Carter, 231 U. S. 492, 493; United States v. Moist, 231 U. S. 701, 702; United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U. S. 300, 301, 302; United States v. Schrader’s Son, Inc., 252 U. S. 85, 98; United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U. S. 450, 461. [*193] A distinct question is presented where the District Court has not placed…
-
Ohio OIL Co. v. Thompson, 120 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1941)…he litigation. In all such cases the decision of the lower court upon such matter may be reviewed by the proper court. Ex parte The Union Steamboat Company, 178 U.S. 317, 319, 20 S.Ct. 904, 44 L.Ed. 1084; In re City of Louisville, 231 U.S. 639, 645, 34 S.Ct. 255, 58 L.Ed. 413; Mason v. Pewabic Mining Co., 153 U.S. 361, 14 S.Ct. 847, 38 L.Ed. 745; Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Slattery, 7 Cir., 98 F. 2d 930; Id., 7 Cir., 102 F. 2d 58. On remand the inferior courts are free as to all issues not within the co…
-
Brictson MFG. Co. v. Munger, 20 F.2d 793 (8th Cir. 1927)…the foregoing costs and expenses and proceed with its appeals above mentioned without delay.” [1] We have no doubt of the jurisdiction of this court to compel the enforcement of its decrees and mandates by mandamus. In re Louisville, 231 U. S. 639, 34 S. Ct. 255, 58 L. Ed. 413; In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247, 255, 16 S. Ct. 291, 40 L. Ed. 414. [2-5] We do not question our power to issue the writ in the present proceedings. However, mandamus is not a writ of right, but its issue is a matter o…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1896)