UNITED STATES V. BRITTON
| Citation | 108 U. S. 199 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1883 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION
FROM THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
1. In an indictment for a conspiracy under § 5440 Rev.Stat., the conspiracy must be sufficiently charged: it cannot be aided by averments of acts done by one or more of the conspirators in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy.
2. The procuring by two or more directors of a national banking association of a declaration of a dividend by the bank at a time when there are no net profits to pay it is not a willful misappropriation of the money of the association within the provisions of § 5204 Rev.Stat., and an allegation of a conspiracy to do that act is not an allegation of a conspiracy to commit an offence against the United States.
Indictment against two directors of a national bank for conspiracy to defraud the bank.
Section 5440 of the Revised Statutes declares:
Section 5209 of the Revised Statutes provides as follows:
"Every president, director, cashier, teller, clerk, or agent of any [banking] association who embezzles, abstracts, or willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds, or credits of the association, . . . or who makes any false entry in any book, report, or statement of the association, with intent in either case to injure or defraud the association, or any company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of the association, or any agent appointed to examine the affairs of such association, . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be imprisoned not less than five years nor more than ten."
The defendants were indicted under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes. The indictment contained two counts. The first count charged in substance as follows: that Britton was the president and a director of the National Bank of the Missouri, in St. Louis, a national banking association organized under the act of Congress, and that Bates was vice-president and a director of the same association; that Britton and Bates, while president and vice-president respectively, and directors of said association, did conspire with each other to willfully misapply a large sum of money belonging to and the property of said association, to-wit, the sum of ,500, by means of procuring to be made, on June 30, 1876, by the said association, a dividend of 3 1/2 percent on the capital stock of the association, which said dividend was to be greater, in the sum of ,500, than the net profits of said association on hand after deducting from said net profits the amount of the losses and bad debts of the association existing on said 30th day of June.
The acts done to effect the object of the conspiracy were in substance alleged as follows: that Britton falsely represented to one Walsh, who, on June 30, 1876, was also a director of the association, that the net profits of the association were on
that day sufficient in amount to warrant and permit the declaration of said dividend, and did thereby induce the said Walsh to assent to the declaration of said dividend, and to join, on said June 30, as such director, with Britton and Bates, directors as aforesaid, in the declaration of said dividend, they, the said Britton, Bates and Walsh, constituting a majority in number of the directors of said association; that, to effect the object of said conspiracy, Britton did further, upon the said June 30, cause and procure to be made by one Edward P. Curtis, in the record of the proceedings of the board of directors of said association, the following entry:
that afterwards, on July 8, 1876, in further pursuance of and to effect the object of said conspiracy, the said Britton and Bates did each receive from said association, and convert to his own use, a large sum of money, the said Britton the sum of ,397 and the said Bates the sum of ,112.
The second count was similar to the first, except that after averring that said dividend so to be declared on said June 30, 1876, was known to be false and fraudulent, it was added that there was on said June 30, 1876, due and owing to said association certain debts, specifying them, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of 7,214.29; that upon such debts there was owing to the association, then past due and unpaid, interest for a period of six months; that said debts were "not well secured and in process of collection," and their aggregate amount was largely in excess of the net profits and purported net profits of said association then on hand, as said Britton and Bates then well knew, and that said debts were bad debts within the meaning of section 5204 of the Revised Statutes, as said Britton and Bates then well knew.
The defendants demurred to the indictment. Upon the hearing of the demurrer, the judges of the circuit court were divided in opinion upon the following questions:
1. Whether, under § 5209 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, it was necessary to aver that the alleged conspiracy was entered into with intent to injure and defraud, and whether the several counts in this indictment not containing the said allegations are good and sufficient in law.
2. Whether it was necessary in this indictment, in addition to the allegations charging the conspiracy to willfully misapply certain funds and property of the association, by means of procuring to be made by the board of directors a dividend, as alleged in the indictment, to further allege that said dividend was in pursuance of said conspiracy declared and made; and, if so, whether the same is sufficiently charged therein, and whether it is also necessary to allege that said dividend was fraudulent when declared, and also when paid.
3. Whether, under § 5209 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, it was necessary in this indictment to charge that the funds alleged to have been misapplied had been previously entrusted to the possession of the defendants.
4. Whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frankfort Distilleries v. United States
......United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135; United States v. Britton, 107 U.S. 655, 2 S.Ct. 512, 27 L.Ed. 520. Where the statute is general in terms and fails fully, directly, and expressly to set forth with certainty and without ambiguity all of the essential elements necessary to constitute offense, the indictment must descend to particulars and charge every ......
-
United States v. Cohen
......It has been said over and over again that the conspiracy, not the overt act, is the "gist" of the crime. United States v. Hirsch, 100 U.S. 33, 34, 25 L.Ed. 539; United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 204, 2 S.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed. 698; Bannon v. United States, 156 U.S. 464, 468, 15 S.Ct. 467, 39 L.Ed. 494; Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 531, 535, 35 S.Ct. 291, 59 L.Ed. 705; Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239, 244, 40 S.Ct. 205, 64 L.Ed. 542; Braverman v. United ......
-
United States v. Green
...... one. Without such averments there is no sufficient. description of the exact offense with which the defendant is. charged, so as to enable him to defend himself against it, or. to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of a future. prosecution for the same cause. United States v. Britton, 107 U.S. 655, 661, 669, 2 Sup.Ct. 512, 27 L.Ed. 520; United States v. Northway, 120 U.S. 327, 332,. 334, 7 S.Ct. 580, 30 L.Ed. 664; Evans v. United. States, 153 U.S. 584, 587, 588, 14 Sup.Ct. 934, 38 L.Ed. 830.'. . . In. Evans v. U.S., 153 U.S. 584-587, 14 Sup.Ct. 934, ......
-
National Park Bank of New York v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
......378, 115 S.W. 998, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1142, 129 Am.St.Rep. 518, 16 Ann.Cas. 518; United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 2. Sup.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed. 698. If a corporation's agent,. having ......
-
§ 29.04 Conspiracy: The Agreement
...one or all of the parties may abandon their design, and thus avoid the penalty prescribed by the statute." United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 205 (1883). In other words, the overt-act requirement in such jurisdictions gives a conspirator, before that act occurs, "an opportunity to repe......
-
§ 29.04 CONSPIRACY: THE AGREEMENT
...one or all of the parties may abandon their design, and thus avoid the penalty prescribed by the statute." United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 205 (1883). In other words, the overt-act requirement in such jurisdictions gives a conspirator, before that act occurs, "an opportunity to repe......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...State v., 532 A.2d 199 (N.J. 1987), , 343, 344 Britt, State v., 510 So. 2d 670 (La. Ct. App. 1987), 255 Britton, United States v., 108 U.S. 199 (1883), 410 Brooks v. State, 330 A.2d 670, 570 Brooks v. State, 35 Ohio St. 46 (1878), 534 Brooks, State v., 319 P.3d 54 (Kan. 2014), 552 Brooks, S......