United States v. Adams, s. 281

Decision Date14 April 1930
Docket NumberNos. 281,282,s. 281
Citation50 S.Ct. 269,74 L.Ed. 807,281 U.S. 202
PartiesUNITED STATES v. ADAMS (two cases)
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The Attorney General and Mr. Sisson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United states.

Mr. T. H. Caraway, of Jonesboro, Ark., for appellee.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defendant was indicted for a false entry in a book of a bank of which he was president, and which was a member of the Federal reserve system. The entry imported that he had made a deposit of $75,000 to the credit of himself and sons, which it is averred that he had not made. The book was a ledger showing the account of D. D. Adams & Sons, among others, with the bank. The defendant pleaded a former acquittal. The previous indictment was for a false entry in another book of the bank known as the journal ledger and daily balance book, and imported a remittance of $75,000 to another bank to the credit of the defendant's own for which the defendant took credit as above stated. This remittance was a draft for $75,000 which it was alleged that Adams was not entitled to draw. The two entries had reference to the same transaction, were based upon the same draft and were the correlated means of accomplishing a single fraud if fraud there had been. The District Court held that on its construction of Rev. St. § 5209, as amended by the Act of September 26, 1918, c. 177, § 7, 40 Stat. 967, 972; U. S. C. title 12, § 592 (12 USCA § 592), there could be but one prosecution for false entries based upon any single draft, even though several different entries were made in the different books of the bank, all relating to the same. Therefore it sustained the plea. The United States appealed.

It is a short point. The statute punishes any officer of a Federal reserve bank who makes any false entry in any book of the bank with intent, etc. The Government contends for the most literal reading of the words, and that every such entry is a separate offense to be separately punished. But we think that it cannot have been contemplated that the mere multiplication of entries, all to the same point and with a single intent, should multiply the punishment in proportion to the complexity of the bookkeeping. The judgment in this case is affirmed.

The second case presents a more delicate question than the previous one, although it was thought by the District Court to come under the same principle. This indictment is for a false entry in a report of conditions of the defendant's bank showing as due from banks other than Federal reserve banks $138,409.52...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • State v. Erwin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • December 11, 1941
    ...... in defense of another prosecution for the same offense. See. United . [120 P.2d 294] . States v. Cruikshank , 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. ...68, 61 L.Ed. 161,. 3 A. L.R. 516; United States v. D. D. Adams , 281 U.S. 202, 50 S.Ct. 269, 74 L.Ed. 807;. State v. Heaton , 56 N.D. ......
  • Abbate v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1959
    ...a prior indictment alleging the receipt of a bribe from a named person who was an officer of the corporation. In United States v. Adams, 281 U.S. 202, 50 S.Ct. 269, 74 L.Ed. 807, the defendant had attempted to conceal an embezzlement by making false entries in bank books and, at a later dat......
  • United States v. Kramer, 97
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 2, 1961
    ...estoppel in civil case; United States v. Oppenheimer, 1916, 242 U.S. 85, 87, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed 167; United States v. Adams, 1930, 281 U.S. 202, 205, 50 S.Ct. 269, 74 L.Ed. 807; Sealfon v. United States, 1948, 332 U.S. 575, 578, 68 S.Ct. 237, 92 L.Ed. 180; Hoag v. State of New Jersey, 356......
  • United States v. Rangel-Perez, Cr. No. 25568-CD.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • December 9, 1959
    ...the Federal courts. See: Sealfon v. United States, 1948, 332 U.S. 575, 578, 68 S.Ct. 237, 92 L.Ed. 180; United States v. Adams, 1930, 281 U.S. 202, 204-205, 50 S.Ct. 269, 74 L.Ed. 807; United States v. Oppenheimer, 1916, 242 U.S. 85, 86-88, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161; Frank v. Mangum, 1915, ......
  • 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