UNITED STATES
v.
STRANG ET AL.

U.S. | 1921-01-03
No. 206
Mr. Justice Clarke dissen fcsi
254 U.S. 491 Supreme Court of the United States (1921) Caution
Also reported at: 65 L. Ed. 368 · 41 S. Ct. 165 · 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1892 · SCDB 1920-222
Cited by 114 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court held that an employee of the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation was not an "agent of the United States" under section 41 of the Criminal Code merely by virtue of his employment, even though the government owned all the Corporation's stock. The Court affirmed the dismissal of an indictment charging Strang with unlawfully acting as a government agent when he placed orders with a company in which he held a financial interest, reasoning that the Fleet Corporation was a separate legal entity with its own officers and agents who were responsible to the Corporation rather than to the United States government.


© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McReynolds

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.

The ultimate question for determination is whether the employment of defendant Strang as an inspector by the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, without more, made him an agent of the Government within the meaning of § 41, Criminal Code.

“Sec. 41. No officer or agent of any corporation, joint stock company, or association, and no member or agent of any firm, or person directly or indirectly interested in the pecuniary profits or contracts of such corporation, joint stock company, association, or firm, shall be employed or shall act as an officer or agent of the United States for the transaction of business with such corporation, joint stock company, association, or firm. Whoever shall violate the provision of this section shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than -two years.”

Holding that this employment did not suffice to create the relation alleged, the trial court sustained a demurrer to the indictment. It contains four counts, three of which charge that Strang unlawfully acted as agent of the United States in transacting business with the Duval Ship Outfitting-Company, a co-partnership of which he was a member, in that while an employee of the Fleet Corporation as an. inspector he signed and executed (February, 1919) three separate orders to the Outfitting Company for repairs and alterations on the steamship Lone Star. The other defendants aré charged with aiding and abetting him. The trial court and counsel here have treated the fourth count as charging all the defendants with conspiracy to' commit the offenses set forth in the three preceding counts. United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U. S. 300.

Counsel for the Government maintain that the Fleet Corporation is an agency or instrumentality of the United States formed only as an arm for executing purely governmental powers and. duties vested by Congress in the President and by him delegated to it; that the acts of the Corporation within its delegated authority are the acts of the United States; that therefore in placing orders with the Duval Company in behalf of the Fleet Corporation while performing the duties as inspector Strang necessarily acted as agent of the United States.

The demurrer was properly sustained.

As authorized by the Act of September 7, 1916, c. 451, 39 Stat. 728, the United States Shipping Board caused the Fleet Corporation to be organized (April 16, 1917) under laws of the District of Columbia with 150,000,000 capital stock, all owned by the United States, and it became an operating agency of that Board. Later, the President directed that the Corporation should have and exercise a specified portion of the power and authority in respect of ships granted to him by the Act of June 15, 1917, c. 29, and he likewise authorized the Shipping Board to exercise through it another portion of such power and authority. See The Lake Monroe, 250 U. S. 246, 252. The Corporation was controlled and managed by its own officers, and appointed its own servants and agents who became directly responsible to it. Notwithstanding all its stock was owned by the United States it must be regarded as a separate entity. Its inspectors were not appointed by the President, nor by any officer designated by Congress; they were, subject to removal by the Corporation only, and could contract only for it. In such circumstances we think they were not agents of the United States within the true intendment of § 41.

Generally agents of a corporation are not agents of the stockholders and cannot contract for the latter. Apparently this was one reason why Congress authorized organization of the Fleet Corporation. Bank of the United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904, 907, 908; Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Pet. 318; Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257; Salas v. United States, 234 Fed. Rep. 842. The view of Congress is further indicated by the provision in § 7, Appropriation Act of October 6, 1917, c. 79, 40 Stat. 345, 384, — “Provided, That the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation shall be considered a Government establishment for the purposes of this section.” Also, by the Act of October 23, 1918, c. 194, 40 Stat. 1015, which amends § 35, Criminal Code, and renders it criminal to defraud or conspire to defraud a corporation in which the United States owns stock.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Clarke dissen fcsi


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (36 total)

  • Commonwealth of Mass. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (U.S. 1923)
  • …rs and which was to be formed like any business corporation under the laws of . the District, with capacity to sue and be sued. The United States took all the stock but" that did not affect the legal position of the company. United States v. Strang, 254 U. S. 491. At that stage the original contract was made. Subsequently the powers of the corporation [*566] were greatly enlarged. On July 11, 1917, the President delegated to it the powers that had been conferred upon him by the Act of June 15, 1917, c. 29, 4…
    1 / 3
  • Rainwater v. United States, 356 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1958)
    …false or fraudulent claims “against the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof.” See note 1, supra. The civil provisions as enacted in § 3490 have never been altered. 40 Stat. 1015. Also see United States v. Strang, 254 U. S. 491. Compare United States v. Walter, 263 U. S. 15, 18, and Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 275 U. S. 415.…

Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw