United States v. Mellon
| Decision Date | 18 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 252.,252. |
| Citation | 96 F.2d 462 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MELLON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Joseph Leary Delaney, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Frederick Backer, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Murray Kreindler, of New York City (William S. Baron, of New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant Mellon.
Abraham H. Simon, of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Jacob Graifer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellant Kaplan.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
The appellants were tried, convicted, and sentenced on each of two counts in an indictment. They were charged in the first count with having made false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 80, in an application for a loan insured under the provisions of title 1, section 2, of the National Housing Act, as amended, 12 U. S.C.A. § 1703; and in the second with having conspired so to do in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 88.
There was evidence which justified the jury in finding that the appellant Mellon, under the fictitious name of Albert B. Underwood, applied to the National City Bank of New York for a loan of $575 ostensibly to secure money with which to make repairs upon leased real estate; that the application was made in writing upon a form provided by the Federal Housing Administrator to a bank insured under the National Housing Act, as amended, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1701 et seq., for the purpose of securing a loan so insured; that the application contained several willfully false statements which were made to be relied on; that the bank did make the loan in reliance upon such false statements; that the loan was only partially repaid by the borrower; that the remainder was paid by the Federal Housing Administrator as an insured obligation; and that the repairs for which the loan was obtained were never made.
In accordance with the application, the person to whom the check for the proceeds of the loan should be sent was Albert B. Underwood, whose address was given as 2604 Atlantic avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y., and he alone was designated in the body of the application as the applicant. His employer was stated to be Signeon Headquarters, Inc., whose address was the same as that of the applicant Underwood. The application appeared to be signed by Signeon Headquarters, Inc., and its seal affixed. This was followed by the words, "Secy Albert B. Underwood," and by what appeared to be the signature of Albert B. Underwood and that of his wife, Mary Ellen Underwood. It was conceded that the appellant Mellon made out this application and signed the name Albert B. Underwood at each place it appeared in it.
The note given the bank for the amount of the loan was put in evidence. It was signed by Albert B. Underwood, as the borrower; by Mary Ellen Underwood, as wife of the borrower; and by "Albert B. Underwood, Sec, Signeon Headquarters, Inc." It was conceded that appellant Mellon signed the note as Albert B. Underwood and also added that name with the words, "Sec. Signeon Headquarters, Inc." There was also in evidence what purported to be a resolution of the board of directors of Signeon Headquarters, Inc., authorizing Albert B. Underwood to borrow not in excess of $575 in behalf of the corporation from the National City Bank of New York. This was conceded to be in the handwriting of appellant Mellon with the exception of the signature by one, "James A. Milo." Then there was in evidence the check by which the bank sent the proceeds of the loan to "Underwood." On the face of the check were the words: "* * * Account No. M. 0350681 Signeon Headquarters Inc 2603 Atlantic Ave Bklyn N. Y. Pay to the order of Acct of Albert B. Underwood * * *." On the back were indorsements of which only the following now are of consequence:
All of the above appearing on the back of the check was written by appellant Mellon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Notarantonio, s. 84-1496
...if it discovered the falsity of the statements and that the SBA did in fact have to make good on its guarantee. Cf. United States v. Mellon, 96 F.2d 462 (2d Cir.) (false statements made in application to bank for loan insured by federal government), cert. denied, 304 U.S. 586, 58 S.Ct. 1061......
-
United States v. Hess
...United States v. Harding, 65 App.D.C. 161; 81 F.2d 563, 568; United States v. MacDonald (D.C.), 10 F.Supp. 948." In United States v. Mellon et al., 2 Cir., 96 F.2d 462, it was held that false statements in an application for a loan insured under the National Housing Act, 12 U.S. C.A. § 1701......
-
United States v. Hess, 7841.
...United States v. Harding, 65 App.D.C. 161, 81 F.2d 563). United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 43 S.Ct. 39, 67 L.Ed. 149; United States v. Mellon, 2 Cir., 96 F.2d 462; United States v. J. Greenbaum & Sons, 2 Cir., 123 F.2d 770 and United States v. Schor, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 399 were brought un......
-
Gilbert v. United States
...1962). And several circuits have squarely held that the statute does not impose this asserted requirement. Thus, in United States v. Mellon, 96 F.2d 462 (2d Cir. 1938) it was held that an application to a local bank for an F.H.A. insured loan was within the statute. And in Ebeling v. United......