|
|
United States v. Heinze, 218 U.S. 532 (1910)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Heinze, 218 U.S. 532 (1910)
United States v. Heinze No. 380 Argued November 3, 1910 Decided December 5, 1910 218 U.S. 532
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Where the Circuit Court held the indictment insufficient because the facts alleged did not constitute a crime under the statute as it held that the latter should be construed, this Court has jurisdiction of an appeal by the government under the Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246.
Where the indictment charges an officer of a national bank with willful misapplication of funds of the bank, induced by and resulting in his advantage, with the illegal intent to injure and defraud the bank by receiving and discounting with its moneys an absolutely unsecured promissory note of a named party whereby the proceeds of the discount of the note were wholly lost to the bank, it sufficiently charges a violation of § 5209, Rev.Stat. It is not necessary to allege conversion by the officer of the bank and also by the recipient of the proceeds of the discount.
A charge that a note for an amount was received for discount which was wholly unsecured and which sum was lost to the bank amounts to a direct allegation that the loss was caused by the discounting.
A right of appeal is not essential to due process of law, Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, and neither due process of law nor equal protection of the law is denied to the accused by the Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, giving the government an appeal to this Court under certain conditions from judgments sustaining demurrers to, or motions to quash, indictments because the same appeal is not allowed to the accused in case the demurrer or motion to quash is overruled.
Even if, and not now decided, the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the United States, it can have no broader meaning when so applied than when applied to the states, and even if Congress may not discriminate in legislation, it has the power to classify, and the classification in the Act of March 2, 1907, is well within such power.
161 F. 425 reversed.
The facts, which involve the validity of an indictment for misapplication of funds of a national bank under § 5209, Rev.Stat., are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Heinze, 218 U.S. 532 (1910) in 218 U.S. 532 218 U.S. 533–218 U.S. 537. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3ZKEBZ4G56Y2C6A.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Heinze, 218 U.S. 532 (1910), in 218 U.S. 532, pp. 218 U.S. 533–218 U.S. 537. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3ZKEBZ4G56Y2C6A.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Heinze, 218 U.S. 532 (1910). cited in 1910, 218 U.S. 532, pp.218 U.S. 533–218 U.S. 537. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3ZKEBZ4G56Y2C6A.
|