Bermann v. Reimer

Decision Date03 November 1941
Docket NumberNo. 26.,26.
Citation123 F.2d 331
PartiesBERMANN v. REIMER, Commissioner.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Martin Koeppel and Harry Gittleson, both of Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Mathias F. Correa, U. S. Atty., and John B. Creegan, both of New York City, for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether the relator, an alien, was properly denied entry into the United States under § 136(e) of Title 8 U.S.C.A., on the ground that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. He had been a merchant doing business in Bern, Switzerland; he became bankrupt in April, 1938, and his business was liquidated; at about the same time he was convicted of "fraud" in the criminal division of the Superior Court of the Canton of Bern, a copy of whose decision was put in evidence at the hearings before the Board of Special Inquiry. This was a long, discursive document, reciting the court's findings (with some of the evidence) that the alien had purchased merchandise in 1938 from one, Stauffenegger; that he had assured Stauffenegger in October, 1937 that he was solvent; and that he knew these assurances to be false when he made them. For this reason he was "declared guilty of fraud", was fined the costs of the "Government", and was sentenced to five months imprisonment in the "House of Correction", the imprisonment being "conditionally remitted, subject to a time of probation of 3 years". We shall assume that such a sentence is the equivalent of a sentence of imprisonment in this country, whose execution the court suspends and puts the convict on probation.

We have no doubt that to obtain goods upon false representations is an offence "involving moral turpitude". Nishimoto v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 44 F.2d 304; U. S. ex rel. Robinson v. Day, 2 Cir., 51 F.2d 1022; Mercer v. Lence, 10 Cir., 96 F.2d 122. However, if the effort had been to deport the alien because of his commission of such a crime in this country, instead of to exclude him for a crime committed before entry, the sentence imposed here would not have been enough. In U. S. ex rel. Robinson v. Day, supra, 51 F.2d 1022 we held that an alien was not deportable under § 155 of Title 8 U.S.C.A., even though the judge sentenced him to prison, if he suspended execution. We do not understand that this ruling is affected by Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204; but Section 136...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Jordan v. De George
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1951
    ...This has been true in a variety of situ- ations involving fraudulent conduct: obtaining goods under fraudulent pretenses, Bermann v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 331; conspiracy to defraud by deceit and falsehood, Mercer v. Lence, 10 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 122; forgery with intent to defraud......
  • Tseung Chu v. Cornell
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 12, 1957
    ...matters which could not have been the basis for deportation. Cf.: Rousseau v. Weedin, 9 Cir., 284 F. 565, at page 566; Berman v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 331; Masaichi Ono v. Carr, 9 Cir., 1932, 56 F.2d 772; United States ex rel. Alvarez y Flores v. Savoretti, 5 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d A......
  • Featherstone v. Barash, 7804.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • May 6, 1965
    ...1004 (10th Cir. 1947); Hanna Paint Mfg. Co. v. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, 298 F.2d 371 (10th Cir. 1962). 21 Cf. Bermann v. Reimer, 123 F.2d 331 (2d Cir. 1941). 22 It is true that Finding IX finds that "There was no specific agreement between plaintiff and defendant Featherstone as......
  • United States v. Neelly
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • November 13, 1953
    ...8 U.S.C. § 155(a). 5 E. g. U. S. ex rel. McKenzie v. Savoretti, 5 Cir.1952, 200 F.2d 546 (forgery, uttering and larceny); Bermann v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 331 (obtaining goods by false representations); U. S. ex rel. Berlandi v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1940, 113 F.2d 429 (evasion of revenu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT