Westfall v. United States, 766
| Decision Date | 16 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 766,766 |
| Parties | WESTFALL v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. D. S. Face and Harry D. Jewell, both of Grand Rapids, Mich., for Westfall.
Mr. William D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Westfall was convicted under two indictments, the first of which charged him with aiding and procuring the branch manager of a State bank which was a member of the Federal Reserve System to misapply the funds of the bank. The second indictment charged a conspiracy to misapply the funds of the bank between the same and other parties. Both were based upon the issuing a fraudulent certificate of deposit for ten thousand dollars and the paying the same from the funds of the bank. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit certifies this question:
'Is the provision of section 9, chapter 6, of the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913 (38 Stat. 259, 260), as amended June 21, 1917 (chapter 32, § 3; 40 Stat. 232), and July 1, 1922, constitutional in so far as it provides that 'such banks and the officers, agents and employees thereof shall also be subject to the provisions of and the penalties prescribed by section 5209 of the Revised Statutes?"
The amendment of July 1, 1922, referred to, is, we presume, chapter 274, 42 Stat. 821 (Comp. St. § 9792). It has no immediate bearing upon the question propounded and as it is not relied upon in argument we shall leave it on one side.
It is not disputed that Rev. Stat. § 5209 (Comp. St. § 9772), if applicable, punishes the bank manager, and those who aided and abetted him in his crime. Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 432, 447, 15 S. Ct. 394, 39 L. Ed. 481. The argument is that Congress has no power to punish offenses against the property rights of State banks. It is said that the state is so broad that it covers such offenses when they could not result in any loss to the Federal Reserve Banks, and it is suggested that if upheld the Act will invalidate similar statutes of the States. This argument is well answered by Hiatt v. United States (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 374, 377, certiorari denied 268 U. S. 704, 45 S. Ct. 638, 69 L. Ed. 1167. Of course an act may be criminal under the laws of both jurisdictions. United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377, 382, 43 S. Ct. 141, 67 L. Ed. 314. And if a State bank chooses to come into the System created by the United States, the United States may punish acts injurious to the System, although done to a corporation that the State also is entitled to protect. The general proposition is too plain to need more than statement. That there is such a System and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Alabama
...that federal law also sanctions, without being preempted, is “too plain to need more than statement.” Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258, 47 S.Ct. 629, 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927). The United States argues, “The federal alien registration scheme has been held by the Supreme Court to repr......
-
Pope v. United States
...Code. This section's constitutionality has been clearly established, and these points are without merit. Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 47 S.Ct. 629, 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927); Toles v. United States, 308 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 949, 84 S.Ct. 353, 11 L.Ed.2d 28......
-
Commonwealth v. Nelson
...by appropriate legislation.’ We have already seen the reason for that precautionary reservation to the States. Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 47 S.Ct. 629, 71 L.Ed. 1036, also cited by the court below, is wholly irrelevant. The manager of a state-bank member of the Federal Reserve......
-
United States v. Five Gambling Devices, Labeled In Part Mills and Bearing Serial Nos 593 8212 221, Etc United States v. Denmark United States v. Braun
...141, 64 L.Ed. 260; James Everard's Breweries v. Day, 265 U.S. 545, 560, 44 S.Ct. 628, 631, 68 L.Ed. 1174; Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259, 47 S.Ct. 629, 71 L.Ed. 1036. * * * Similarly Congress may require inspection and preventive treatment of all cattle in a disease infected a......
-
Section 7 of the Clayton Act and “Control” in Bank Holding Company Regulation
...by an equally dividedcourt, 291 U.S. 651 (1934).113See e.g., notes 56-58, supra, and accompanying text. Cf., West-fall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 258-59 (1927).11412 U.S.C. §§1841(g)(1)-(3).See also, 1966 Legis. Hist., supranote 15,at2392. Cf., United States v. American Tobacco Co., 22......
-
Blind Spot in Plain Sight: the Need for Federal Intervention in the Sober Living Home Industry and the Path to Making it Happen
...marks omitted) (citing Heart of Atlanta, 379 U.S. 241).221. Id. at 154-55.222. Id.223. Id. at 154 (quoting Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 259 (1927)).224. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 552 (1995); Thomas, supra note 188, at 6 (citing Herman Schwartz, Court Tries to Patrol ......