UNITED STATES
v.
HALSEY, STUART & CO., INC. ET AL.
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 Supreme Court dismissed the government's appeal of a district court's decision to quash a mail fraud indictment, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the lower court's order appeared to be based on the insufficiency of the indictment as a pleading rather than on the validity or construction of the underlying statute. The Court established that a motion challenging an indictment's sufficiency is not a "special plea in bar" appealable under the Criminal Appeals Act when the district court does not explicitly base its decision on statutory construction or invalidity.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Defendants were indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for violations of § 215 of the Criminal Code, relating to fraudulent use of the mails. 18 U. S. C. 338. Under order of the court the Government filed a bill of particulars. 4 F. Supp. 662. Defendants then moved to quash the indictment. The motion was based upon the indictment, the bill of particulars, and an affidavit of defendants’ counsel. The affidavit was an argumentative review of the bill of particulars for the purpose of showing that in view of its statements the Government would be “ unable to make a case.” The court granted the motion to quash, and the Government brought this appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act. 18 U. S. C. 682. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal was postponed to the hearing on the merits.
The District Judge rendered no opinion, but certified that his “ decision and order quashing the indictment herein were not based in any respect upon the invalidity or construction of section 215 of the Criminal Code upon which the indictment in said cause is founded.”
We find no basis for the contention that defendants’ motion to quash was in substance a “ special plea in bar ” within the meaning of the Criminal Appeals Act. See United States v. Storrs, 272 U. S, 652, 654; United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, 147. The motion and the affidavit in its support challenged the sufficiency of the indictment in the light of the bill of particulars. As it does not appear that the decision of the District Judge was based upon the construction or invalidity of the statute upon which the indictment is founded, and as it may well be that the decision was based upon the construction of the indictment and its insufficiency as a pleading, this Court is without jurisdiction of the appeal. United States v. Carter, 231 U. S. 492, 493, 494; United States v. Moist, 231 U. S. 701, 702; United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U. S. 300, 301, 302; United States v. Hastings, ante, p. 188.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Swift & Co., 318 U.S. 442 (U.S. 1943)…not lie when the district court has considered the construction of the statute but has also rested its decision upon the independent ground of a defect in the pleading. United States v. Hastings, 296 U. S. 188; United States v. Halsey, Stuart & Co., 296 U. S. 451; United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 193; United States v. Wayne Pump Co., 317 U. S. 200, and cases cited. This. practice was recognized and confirmed by the adoption of the amendment of May 9, 1942 to the Criminal [*445] Appeals Act. The a…1 / 2
-
United States v. Wayne Pump Co., 317 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1942)…ent is based upon the invalidity, or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded.” 2 We have no jurisdiction if the judgment below is not so based. United States v. Hastings, 296 U. S. 188; United States v. Halsey, Stuart & Co., 296 U. S. 451; United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188. In their statement opposing jurisdiction, appellees contended that the demurrers were sustained because of the insufficiency of the indictments as pleadings, as distinguished from a construction of the s…1 / 2
-
United States v. Heath, 260 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1958)…The amendment also permitted the Supreme Court to remand appropriate cases to Court of Appeals. For the prior and subsequent practice, compare United States v. Carter, 231 U.S. 492, 34 S.Ct. 173, 58 L.Ed. 330; United States v. Halsey, Stuart & Co., 296 U.S. 451, 56 S.Ct. 299, 80 L.Ed. 323; United States v. Wayne Pump Co., 317 U.S. 200, 63 S.Ct. 191, 87 L.Ed. 184; with United States v. Swift & Co., 318 U.S. 442, 63 S.Ct. 684, 87 L.Ed. 889; United States v. Jones, 345 U.S. 377, 73 S.Ct. 759, 97 L.Ed. 1086.…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (U.S. 1919)
- United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1931)
- United States v. Storrs, 272 U.S. 652 (U.S. 1926)
- United States v. Carter, 231 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1913)
- United States v. Moist, 231 U.S. 701 (U.S. 1914)