United States v. Rehwald
| Decision Date | 07 November 1930 |
| Citation | 44 F.2d 663 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. REHWALD et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and Harry Graham Balter, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal.
Ralph F. Graham and Russell Graham, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.
The joint accusation against the defendants arises under the Act of March 3, 1927, c. 209, § 1 (7 USCA § 491), which, in so far as material here, provides as follows: "After June 30th, 1927, any person, firm, association, or corporation, receiving any fruits, vegetables, melons, dairy, or poultry products or any perishable farm products of any kind or character * * * in interstate commerce, or in the District of Columbia, for or on behalf of another, who * * * shall knowingly and with intent to defraud fail truly and correctly to account therefor shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and * * * shall be punished. * * *"
The stipulation of facts submitted to the court substantially states that defendants received in interstate commerce from the shipper a consignment of cantaloupes from Yuma, Ariz., which were sold by the defendants at San Bernardino, Cal., in June and July, 1927, and that, after deducting the necessary expenses, the net proceeds from the sale or sales amounted to $593.67. Defendants did not forward a statement of the account or receipt of the shipment and sales until October, 1927, when "an account of receipt and sales was rendered" and accompanied by the statement that defendants had had business difficulties with their creditors, and therefore had delayed accounting "hoping to be able to send with it money due the shipper." They did not, however, send the net proceeds realized on sales, and the question presented on this motion to dismiss the information is whether the words "account therefor" contained in the statute, properly interpreted, include payment, or whether it was restricted simply to a recital or reckoning of the transaction.
I have considered the arguments pro and con and reached the conclusion that Congress used the phrase "account therefor" in a sense broad enough to include payment and settlement of the account. The act in question specifies several offenses, among them making a false report or statement with intent to defraud concerning the handling, condition, and quality of the produce, or, with like intent, failing truly and correctly to account therefor. Such phrasing, in my opinion, implies the omission to account therefor by payment. It is inconceivable that Congress merely intended to legislate against forwarding a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. Simons
...excluded." In Re Estate of Pringle, 51 Wyo. 352, 67 P.2d 204, 206, 110 A.L.R. 987, at pages 990, 991, it is said: "In United States v. Rehwald, D.C., 44 F.2d 663, the court, defining the words 'account for,' said: 'The term "account for" has been in various state adjudications interpreted t......
-
Victory Carriers, Inc. v. United States
...therefor and to pay over to the United States the amount of the shortage. The authorities support this position. See United States v. Rehwald, 44 F.2d 663 (S.D.Cal.1930); Port of Seattle v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 24 F.Supp. 434, 436 (W.D.Wash.1938), rev'd on other grounds, 106 F.2d 777 (9t......
-
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Port of Seattle
...See: The Idaho, 93 U.S. 575, 579, 23 L.Ed. 978; Hale County, Tex. v. American Indemnity Co., 5 Cir., 63 F.2d 275, 278; United States v. Rehwald, D.C.Cal., 44 F.2d 663; 1 C.J.S., Account, page 576. In the view of the rule announced in Duke v. National Surety Co., supra, the default occurred,......
-
In re Pringle's Estate
...from that of the state of California, use these words in fixing commissions to be allowed personal representatives. In United States v. Rehwald, 44 F.2d 663, the court, defining the words "account for," said: "The term 'account for' has been in various state adjudications interpreted to mea......