|
|
United States v. Leary, 245 U.S. 1 (1917)
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. Leary, 245 U.S. 1 (1917)
United States v. Leary No. 194 Argued October 4, 1917 Decided October 15, 1917 245 U.S. 1
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Where a defendant, under indictment for defrauding the United States of money, deposited stocks with a representative by whom another person was induced to execute the defendant’s bail bond on the faith of the deposit as indemnity, and neither surety nor depositary had notice of any defect in the depositor’s title, the surety’s equity in the deposit was superior to that of the United States, though the stocks were procured with the proceeds of the fraud.
In such case, where, after the first bond, the surety executed several renewals in removal and habeas corpus proceedings, the parties repeatedly treating the proceedings and the indemnity agreement as continuing matters, held by inference that the same understanding attached to a further bond for appearance at trial, and that the depositary’s conduct in retaining only shares constituting the deposit, while settling with the defendant for others, confirmed such intention.
During the proceedings, the shares originally deposited were sold by the depositary, with others belonging to the defendant, and, of new shares purchased with the proceeds, some were selected and retained by the depositary in lieu of those first deposited. Held that the equity of the surety attached to them.
Upon an issue of fact as to whether stock claimed by plaintiff was held by defendant as indemnity for interveners, defendant’s sworn answer, filed before the intervention and averring that he so held the stock, was evidence for the interveners as an act, if not as a statement of facts.
Whether defendant should have an allowance as trustee is left to the trial court.
229 F. 660 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Leary, 245 U.S. 1 (1917) in 245 U.S. 1 245 U.S. 2–245 U.S. 3. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=U9DUS4MZWNCSE8S.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Leary, 245 U.S. 1 (1917), in 245 U.S. 1, pp. 245 U.S. 2–245 U.S. 3. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=U9DUS4MZWNCSE8S.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Leary, 245 U.S. 1 (1917). cited in 1917, 245 U.S. 1, pp.245 U.S. 2–245 U.S. 3. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=U9DUS4MZWNCSE8S.
|