WALTON, ADMINISTRATRIX,

v.

SOUTHERN PACKAGE CORP.

Citator

Cited By

• Pina v. United States, 165 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1948)
  …eld that a Government check or an endorsement thereon is a “writing” within the purview of the above statute. Prussian v. United States, 282 U.S. 675, 679, 51 S.Ct. 223, 75 L.Ed. 610; DeMaurez v. Squier, 9 Cir., 144 F. 2d 564, 565, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 762, 65 S.Ct. 95, 89 L.Ed. 610; Buckner v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F. 2d 255, 256; Conklin v. Cozart, 5 Cir., 158 F. 2d 676, 677. The appellant argues “that no intent to defraud the United States” has been shown in the instant case. Throughout his argumen…
• Rockton & Rion Ry. v. Davis, 159 F.2d 291 (4th Cir. 1946)
  …orporation, 293 N.Y. 826, 59 N.E. 2d 183. And see note, Limitation of Actions under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 45 Col.Law Rev. 444. Cf. Southern Package Corporation v. Walton, 196 Miss. 786, 18 So. 2d 458, 459, certiorari denied, 323 U.S. 762, 65 S.Ct. 93, 89 L.Ed. 609. The authoritative interpretation of the words “penalty or forfeiture” in this South Carolina statute of limitations is the task of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. It seems a fair inference, though, that this court,…
• ING v. United States, 278 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1960)
  …ere charged, Sec. 65-6-1 A.C.L.A. 1949, quoted supra, includes the designation of two offenses — i. e., that of forgery and that of uttering. They are separate and distinct offenses. DeMaurez v. Squier, 9 Cir., 1944, 144 F. 2d 564, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 762, 65 S.Ct. 95, 89 L.Ed. 610; Wiley v. United States, 9 Cir., 1944, 144 F. 2d 707. The appellants were charged in each count of the indictment with the offense of uttering a forged check in the Anchorage area. Was Brownfield an accomplice of the appe…