United States v. Solomon Kenofskey
| Citation | 243 U.S. 440,37 S.Ct. 438,61 L.Ed. 836 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 649,649 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Piff. in Err., v. SOLOMON KENOFSKEY |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Assistant Attorney General Warren for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
Indictment charging a scheme to defraud by use of the mails, in violation of § 215 of the Criminal Code. [35 Stat. at L. 1130, chap. 321, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 10,385.]
The indictment is in the usual volume of such instru- ments, but may be sufficiently summarized as presenting the following facts:
Kenofskey was the agent and assistant superintendent at New Orleans, Louisiana, of the Life Insurance Company of Virginia. It was part of his duty to obtain certificates and proofs of death of persons insured in the company and also to view the remains of deceased policy holders, have them identified, and deliver the certificates and proofs of death to the superintendent of the local office at New Orleans, to be forwarded in the usual course of business through the United States mails to the home office of the company at Richmond, Virginia. In pursuance of a fraudulent scheme Kenofskey falsely represented to the insurance company that he had received and obtained a valid and genuine claim, proof of death and certificates executed, signed, and presented by Sarah Thompson, the beneficiary in a policy which had been issued upon the life of one Frederick Wicker. Kenofskey signed the certificates as assistant superintendent. Frederick Wicker is still living, and Kenofskey knew that all claims required the approval of the main office and were to be transmitted from the local office through the United States mails, and, if handed by him to the superintendent, would be so transmitted, and, for that purpose, he delivered the proofs to the superintendent. The superintendent examined them, and, without knowledge of their fraudulent character, affixed his signature thereto, inclosed them in an envelop, and deposited them, postage paid, in the United States mails.
A demurrer was filed to the indictment, stating as grounds thereof that it was not sufficient to constitute a violation of § 215 of the Criminal Code of the United States, properly construed and understood, or of any other law of the United States.
The demurrer was sustained, the court giving as its reasons therefor the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerby v. Mortgage Funding Corp., CIV.A. CCB-97-1509.
...be foreseen, even though not actually intended, then he `causes' the mails to be used."), citing United States v. Kenofskey, 243 U.S. 440, 442-43, 37 S.Ct. 438, 438-39, 61 L.Ed. 836 (1917) (holding that life insurance agent who delivered fraudulent death claim to his superior officer knowin......
-
U.S. v. Brown
...350, 353-54 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 926, 95 S.Ct. 1122, 43 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975). Cf. United States v. Kenofskey, 243 U.S. 440, 442-43, 37 S.Ct. 438, 61 L.Ed. 836 (1917). While there is no evidence in the record that Brown specified that the checks be sent by mail, the evidence......
-
United States v. Cohen
...he knows that in the execution of the scheme letters are likely to be mailed, and if in fact they are mailed. United States v. Kenofskey, 243 U.S. 440, 37 S.Ct. 438, 61 L.Ed. 836; Shea v. United States, 6 Cir., 251 F. 440, 447, 448; Ader v. United States, 7 Cir., 284 F. 13, 25; Hart v. Unit......
-
U.S. v. Crockett, 74-3923
...course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended . . . . United States v. Kenofskey, 243 U.S. 440, 37 S.Ct. 438, 61 L.Ed. 836." Pereira v. United States, supra, (347 U.S.) at 8, 74 S.Ct. at 363; see United States v. Maze, supra, (414 U.S.) ......