United States v. Steinman
| Citation | 172 F. 913 |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1909 |
| Docket Number | 53. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. STEINMAN. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
George C. Burgwin, Jno. E. Kunkle, and Edward E. Robbins, for plaintiff in error.
R. M Gibson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the United States.
Before GRAY and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges, and LANNING, District judge.
In the court below E. H. Steinman was convicted on an indictment charging him, under Rev. St. Sec. 5209 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901 p. 3497), with aiding and abetting Charles E. Mullin, cashier of the Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank of Mt Pleasant, Pa., to willfully abstract the funds of said bank. On the imposition of sentence, Steinman sued out this writ of error.
The abstractions charged in the indictment consisted of overdrafts of the Acme Lumber & Supply Company aggregating $30,782.24. Steinman was not an officer of the bank. He was an officer and stockholder of the Acme Lumber & Supply Company, the Anchor Glass Company, and the Searchlight Manufacturing Company, three corporations engaged in manufacturing, building, and real estate operations at Mt Pleasant. The proofs show that the alleged value of the properties of said companies was upwards of $300,000. In order to obtain further means for the operations of these companies, he applied to Hissem, the president, and Mullin, the cashier, of the bank, both of whom had stock in these companies. There were certain transactions in reference to the bonds of these companies which need not be detailed here; but the result of their negotiations, so far as pertinent to the questions raised by the assignments of error, was that the three companies were to be furnished funds as they were needed for their pay rolls and operations, and that, as the particular amounts to be finally apportioned to each company could not be determined at the time, the advances were to be made to the general account of the Acme Lumber & Supply Company, and that, as its account was from time to time overdrawn, notes were to be given by such of the companies as had used the funds to take up these overdrafts. On the trial, Steinman, in common with the other defendants, offered to prove the value of the property of the Acme Lumber & Supply Company, the Anchor Glass Company, and the Searchlight Manufacturing Company, whose notes were given as collateral to secure the payment of said checks according to the arrangement made before the checks were issued, 'for the purpose of showing that there was no fraudulent intent to misapply the funds of the bank--a criminal intent being necessary to justify a conviction. ' This offer was objected to by the government as 'incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial to the issue, and not tending to throw light upon the intent of the defendants in paying out the moneys charged in the indictment as having been wrongfully misapplied by the defendants. ' To the court's action in sustaining this objection, exception was taken, and the court's ruling is here assigned for error. The substantial character of proof herein offered appears elsewhere in the record, showing that the value of the property of the three companies at the time of these advances was alleged to be more than $300,000. In its general charge, the court also said:
And this also is assigned for error.
After careful consideration, we are of opinion the defendants were entitled to give in evidence all matters tending to show their good faith in the transaction in question, and that the overdrafts were not willful abstractions and misapplications under section 5209. An overdraft of an account is not per se and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williamson v. United States
...1883, 107 U.S. 655, 2 S.Ct. 512, 27 L.Ed. 520, and Johnson v. United States, 4 Cir., 1938, 95 F.2d 813. See also United States v. Steinman, 3 Cir., 1909, 172 F. 913. 17 See First National Bank of Birmingham v. Daniel, 5 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 801; Daniel v. First National Bank of Birmingham, ......
-
State v. Givens
... ... not exist, no issue of fact proper to go to the jury is ... raised." ( United States v. Corbett, 215 U.S ... 233, 30 S.Ct. 81, 54 L.Ed. 173.) ... A man ... cannot ... kind of a loan." ( United States v. Steinman, ... 172 F. 913, 97 C. C. A. 271; 5 Johnson's Modern Business, ... p. 266; Barrett on Modern ... ...
-
U.S. v. Wilson
...with the bank either to his own use or to the use of a third person, with the intent to injure or defraud the bank. United States v. Steinman, 172 F. 913 (3 Cir. 1909), United States v. Morse, 161 F. 429 (2 Cir. 1908), aff'd. 174 F. 539 (2 Cir. 1909), cert. den. 215 U.S. 605, 30 S.Ct. 406, ......
-
United States v. Pihakis
...Matsinger, 3 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 1014, at page 1018; United States v. Kenney, C.C.D.Del.1898, 90 F. 257. See and cf. United States v. Steinman, 3 Cir., 1909, 172 F. 913; Johnson v. United States, 4 Cir., 95 F.2d 813; United States v. Broxmeyer, 2 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 230, at page 232; Unit......