|
|
Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920)
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.
Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 254 U.S. 175, click here.
Jin Fuey Moy v. United States No. 4 Argued October 11, 1920 Decided December 6, 1920 254 U.S. 189
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Syllabus
1. In a case properly here on a constitutional question under Jud.Code § 238, the court retains its jurisdiction to decide other questions presented, after the constitutional question has been settled in another case. P. 191.
2. In an indictment charging defendant with unlawfully selling morphine in violation of the Anti-Narcotic Act by issuing a prescription, the clause as to issuing the prescription, being intimately involved in the description of the offense, cannot be treated as surplusage, but it is not repugnant to the charge of selling, since, under the act, one person may take a principal part in a prohibited sale of morphine belonging to another by issuing a prescription for it, in view of Crim.Code, § 332, making whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of an offense as principal. P. 192.
3. Subdivision (a) of § 2 of the Anti-Narcotic Act, in allowing the dispensing or distribution of narcotic drugs "to a patient" by a registered physician "in the course of his professional practice only," confines the immunity strictly within the appropriate bounds of a physician’s professional practice, not permitting sales to dealers or distributions intended to satisfy the appetites or cravings of persons addicted to the use of such drugs. P. 194.
4. In a criminal prosecution in the district court in Pennsylvania, the defendant’s wife is not competent to testify for her husband, either generally or by contradicting testimony that certain matters transpired in her presence. P. 195.
253 F. 213 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920) in 254 U.S. 189 254 U.S. 190. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SG4GN5NCAL4J3H3.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920), in 254 U.S. 189, page 254 U.S. 190. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SG4GN5NCAL4J3H3.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920). cited in 1920, 254 U.S. 189, pp.254 U.S. 190. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SG4GN5NCAL4J3H3.
|