UNITED STATES V. BRITTON

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJustia & Oyez
Citation108 U. S. 199
Decision Date02 April 1883

United States v. Britton

Decided April 2, 1883

108 U.S. 199


ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION

FROM THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Syllabus

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:

"If two or more persons conspire . . . to commit any offense against the United States, . . . and one or more of such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, all

Page 108 U. S. 200

the parties to such conspiracy shall be liable to a penalty of not less than ,000 and to imprisonment not more than two years."

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

Page 108 U. S. 201

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:

"St. Louis, June 30, 1876. Present, Messrs. Britton and Walsh; Mr. Bates assenting on the 29th. Ordered that a dividend of 3 1/2 percent be declared payable on the tenth proximo, and that the transfer books be closed till that date. Attest, Edward P. Curtis, cashier;"

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
139 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Hasan, Criminal No. 2:10cr56.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • October 29, 2010
    ...11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812) (finding no federal court common law jurisdiction in criminal cases); United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 205–206, 2 S.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed. 698 (1883). As a result, for a crime to be cognizable in the federal courts of the United States, the offens......
  • People v. Zamora, Cr. 18869
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 16, 1976
    ...to reconsider, terminate the agreement, and thereby avoid punishment for the conspiracy. (Id.; United States v. Britton (1883) 108 U.S. 199, 204--205, 2 S.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed. 698; People v. Olson, supra, 232 Cal.App.2d at p. 490, 42 Cal.Rptr. Unfortunately, the term 'overt act' has often been......
  • U.S. v. Read, Nos. 80-1017
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • September 9, 1981
    ...States v. Owen, 32 F. 534 (D.Or.1887). Under old law, the statute of limitations ran from the first overt act. United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 204, 2 S.Ct. 531, 534, 27 L.Ed. 698 (1883). To prove that a conspiracy was still "live," the government had to prove each defendant's member......
  • United States v. Meyer, No. 17371.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 20, 1959
    ...These sections do not of themselves create any offense against the United States. Therefore, on the authority of United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 2 S.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed. 698, the alleged acts of defendants in violations of these sections do not amount to criminal misapplication of mone......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
139 cases
  • U.S. v. Hasan, Criminal No. 2:10cr56.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • October 29, 2010
    ...11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812) (finding no federal court common law jurisdiction in criminal cases); United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 205–206, 2 S.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed. 698 (1883). As a result, for a crime to be cognizable in the federal courts of the United States, the offens......
  • People v. Zamora, Cr. 18869
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 16, 1976
    ...to reconsider, terminate the agreement, and thereby avoid punishment for the conspiracy. (Id.; United States v. Britton (1883) 108 U.S. 199, 204--205, 2 S.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed. 698; People v. Olson, supra, 232 Cal.App.2d at p. 490, 42 Cal.Rptr. Unfortunately, the term 'overt act' has often been......
  • U.S. v. Read, Nos. 80-1017
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • September 9, 1981
    ...States v. Owen, 32 F. 534 (D.Or.1887). Under old law, the statute of limitations ran from the first overt act. United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 204, 2 S.Ct. 531, 534, 27 L.Ed. 698 (1883). To prove that a conspiracy was still "live," the government had to prove each defendant's member......
  • United States v. Meyer, No. 17371.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 20, 1959
    ...These sections do not of themselves create any offense against the United States. Therefore, on the authority of United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 2 S.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed. 698, the alleged acts of defendants in violations of these sections do not amount to criminal misapplication of mone......
  • 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