Christopher Strassheim v. Milton Daily
| Citation | 31 S.Ct. 558,221 U.S. 280,55 L.Ed. 735 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1911 |
| Docket Number | No. 638,638 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER STRASSHEIM, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, Appt., v. MILTON DAILY |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Thomas E. Barkworth. Ferdinand L. Barnett, Charles W. McGill, and Franz C. Kuhn for appellant.
Mr. William S. Forrest for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order on habeas corpus, discharging the respondent, Daily, from custody under a warrant of the governor of Illinois, directing his extradition to Michigan as a fugitive from justice from that state. Daily, it appears, had been indicted in Michigan for bribery and also for obtaining money from the state by false pretenses, and a requisition had been issued to which the warrant of the governor of Illinois was the response. The district judge who issued the habeas corpus was of opinion, however, that the facts alleged in the indictment for obtaining money by false pretenses did not constitute a crime against the laws of Michigan, and that the evidence showed that Daily was not a fugitive from justice. We will consider these two questions in turn.
The third count of the indictment is the only one that needs to be stated, although all the counts allege a false representation that certain machinery, to be sold to the state, was new, whereas in fact it was secondhand and used, and the obtaining from the state of $10,000 by means of such representation. The third count alleges that one Armstrong was warden of the Michigan state prison at Jackson, and, in conjunction with the board of control of the prison, authorized to buy machinery for a cordage plant in the prison; that he was authorized to accept the machinery and to pay for it from the funds of the state under his control; that said board and Armstrong contracted with the Hoover & Gamble Company, acting through Daily, the agent, and one Eminger, the secretary of the company, for the purchase of such machinery, all of which, by the contract, was to be new; that Armstrong, Daily, and Eminger had agreed beforehand to substitute old, worn, and secondhand machinery, of less value, for that which was contracted for, the board being ignorant of their intent, and being deceived and defraued by the substitution; that the secondhand machinery having been substituted, Armstrong, Daily, and Eminger, with intent to cheat the state, to wit, on the 1st day of May, 1908, falsely pretended that the machinery so furnished was the new machinery required by the contract, and rendered bills for the same at the contract prices; that the bills were audited and allower by Armstrong, and the machinery paid for as new machinery, and that Armstrong, Daily, and Eminger, by means of the false pretenses set up, obtained from the state of Michigan money, to wit, $10,000, the state and the board of control relying upon the false pretenses and being deceived thereby. We sum up the count thus broadly, because, although considerable ingenuity was spent in pointing out defects that would occur to no one outside of the criminal law, yet, whatever may be thought of the criticisms in Michigan, it is plain that the count shows that the defendant 'was substantially charged with a crime,' and upon habeas corpus in extradition proceedings that is enough. Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 405, 52 L. ed. 1113, 1122, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 714.
It would seem, although the record is otherwise, that the judge below really went on the ground that the terms of the contract excluded a reliance upon the false representation alleged. The contract, after stating that it was for 'all new machinery to be manufactured by the Hoover & Gamble Company,' contained a guaranty that the machinery should be 'constructed in a thorough manner, free from any defects of machinery or workmanship, and finished in a first-class manner.' It also provided for the retention of the last quarter of the price 'until the machinery is all installed and tested and operating, so as to fulfil the guaranty above given, to the satisfaction and approval of C. G. Wrentmore, Cons. Engr. of the Board of Control.' The case is not to be tried on habeas corpus. Therefore it is enough to say that the guaranty and testing clauses do not exclude the possibility that the money was obtained by the false pretenses alleged. The guaranty goes, not to newness, but to workmanship and freedom from defects, and the approval of the consulting engineer is required only to show that the guaranty is fulfilled. The guaranty does not exclude other representations and undertakings. As has been seen, it was expressed in the contract that the subject-matter of the guaranty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Smith, No. 2 EAP 2019
...with a crime in one State, it is sufficient that an alleged fugitive simply be found in another State. Strassheim v. Daily , 221 U.S. 280, 285, 31 S.Ct. 558, 55 L.Ed. 735 (1911) ; Ex parte Reggel , 114 U.S. 642, 651-53, 5 S.Ct. 1148, 29 L.Ed. 250 (1885) ; but see Hyatt v. New York , 188 U.S......
-
In re Fairbanks, Bankruptcy No. 89-10904.
....... J. Christopher Marshall, McLane, Graf, Manchester, N.H., formerly representing debtor in ......
-
United States v. Hayes
...enters the United States, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia." 18 Cf. Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 285, 31 S.Ct. 558, 560, 55 L.Ed. 735 (1911) wherein Justice Holmes "Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental e......
-
California v. Superior Court (Smolin)
...into a fugitive from justice is that he should have left the State after having incurred guilt there." Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 285, 31 S.Ct. 558, 560, 55 L.Ed. 735 (1911) (citing Roberts v. Reilly, supra ). See also Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U.S. 222, 227, 27 S.Ct. 122, 123......
-
2011 Ninth Circuit environmental review.
...effects test allows individual states to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction based on effects within the state. Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 285 (1911). (174) Pac. Merch. Shipping Ass'n, 639 F.3d at 1170. (175) RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE U.S. [section][sect......
-
Lines in the sand: the importance of borders in American federalism.
...to fruition in Michigan, is not to the contrary. See Rosen, Extraterritoriality, supra note 1, at 864-65 (discussing Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280 (1911)). Prosecution in such cases is consistent with the understanding of the Framers of the Constitution: it is the consummation of the cr......
-
Allan Erbsen, Impersonal Jurisdiction
...over a "Crime." U.S. CONST. art. IV, Sec. 2. 149 Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 294 n.6 (1942). 150 Cf. Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 285 (1911) ("[Criminal a]cts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a stat......
-
Extraterritoriality and political heterogeneity in American federalism.
...than mandatory; thus, a state court could legitimately conclude that state law precludes a state from regulating extraterritorially. (34) 221 U.S. 280, 281-82 (35) Id. at 285. (36) Id. at 284-85. (37) 313 U.S. 69 (1941). (38) Id. at 73-74. (39) Id. at 77. (40) Id. (quoting Coyle v. Smith, 2......