United States v. Union Supply Company
| Decision Date | 08 November 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 120,120 |
| Citation | 30 S.Ct. 15,54 L.Ed. 87,215 U.S. 50 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. UNION SUPPLY COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Solicitor General Bowers for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 51 intentionally omitted] Mr. Isaac R. Hitt, Jr., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 52 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an indictment of a corporation for wilfully violating the 6th section of the act of Congress of May 9, 1902, chap. 784, § 6, 32 Stat. at L. 193, 197, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, pp. 636, 641. That section requires 'wholesale dealers' in oleomargarine, etc., to keep certain books and to make certain returns. It then goes on as follows: 'And any person who wilfully violates any of the provisions of this section shall, for each such offense, be fined not less than fifty dollars and not exceeding five hundred dollars, and imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than six months.' The corporation moved to quash the indictment, and the district court quashed it on the ground that the section is not applicable to corporations. Thereupon the United States brought this writ of error.
The argument for the defendant in error is drawn from an earlier decision by the same court. It is that § 5 applies in express terms to corporations, and gives the court discretionary power to punish by either fine or imprisonment, or both; whereas, in § 6, both punishments are imposed in all cases, and corporations are not mentioned; that it is impossible to imprison a corporation, and that the statute warrants no sentence that does not comply with its terms. United States v. Braun & Fitts, 158 Fed. 456. We are of opinion that this reasoning is unsound. In the first place, taking up the argument drawn from § 5, that corporations were omitted intentionally from the requirements of § 6, it is to be noticed that the 6th section of the present act copies its requirements from the act of October 1, 1890, chap. 1244, § 41, 26 Stat. at L. 567, 621, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2235, which did not contain the penal clause. In its earlier form the enactment clearly applied to corporations, and when the same words were repeated in the later act it is not to be supposed that their meaning was changed. The words 'wholesale dealers' are as apt to embrace corporations here as they are in § 2, requiring such dealers to pay certain taxes. We have no doubt that they were intended to embrace them. The words 'any person' in the penal clause are as broad as 'wholesale dealers' in the part prescribing the duties. U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3. It is impossible to believe that corporations were inten- tionally excluded. They are as much within the mischief aimed at as private persons, and as capable of a 'wilful' breach of the law. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481, 53 L. ed. 613, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304. If the defendant escapes, it does so on the single...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paul Weems v. United States
...in an assumption which is unwarranted and has been directly decided to the contrary at this term in United States v. Union Supply Co. 215 U. S. 50, 54 L. ed.——, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 15. In that case a corporation was proceeded against criminally for an offense punishable by imprisonment and fin......
-
American Medical Ass'n v. United States
...§§ 211, 454. 100 2 Cir., 266 F. 212, 214, certiorari denied 254 U.S. 637, 41 S.Ct. 12, 65 L. Ed. 451. 101 United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U.S. 50, 30 S.Ct. 15, 54 L.Ed. 87. 102 United States v. General Motors Corp., 7 Cir., 121 F.2d 376, 411, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 618, 62 S.Ct. ......
-
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. United States Bay Counties Dist Council of Carpenters of United Brotherhood of Carpentersand Joiners of America v. Same Lumber Products Association v. Same Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council v. Same Boorman Lumber Co v. Same 10
...free our minds from the notion that criminal statutes must be construed by some artificial * * * rule'. United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U.S. 50, 55, 30 S.Ct. 15, 16, 54 L.Ed. 87. To assure immunity to powerful unions collaborating with employers' associations in disregard of the Sher......
-
United States v. Kemmel
...Central & H. R. R. Co. v. United States, 1909, 212 U.S. 481, 492, 29 S.Ct. 304, 53 L.Ed. 613; United States v. Union Supply Co., 1909, 215 U. S. 50, at page 54, 55, 30 S.Ct. 15, 54 L.Ed. 87; Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 1914, 213 F. 926, at pages 935, 936 (conspiracy), af......
-
The Mischief Rule
...id. at 167–68. 221. JOHN BAKER, AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH LEGAL HISTORY 224 (5th ed. 2019). 222. E.g., United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U.S. 50, 54–55 (1909); Smith v. Townsend, 148 U.S. 490, 499–501 (1893); The Emily, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 381, 388–89 (1824); Commonwealth v. Trent, 77 ......
-
Two ways to think about the punishment of corporations.
...preceding New York Central. Id. at 810-12. (31.) New York Central, 212 U.S. at 494. (32.) See, e.g., United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U.S. 50, 54-55 (1909); Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, 213 F. 926, 936 (8th Cir. 1914) ("The whole growth of the modern law tends to subject co......
-
Of bad apples and bad trees: considering fault-based liability for the complicit corporation.
...of liability "many offenses might go unpunished and acts be committed in violation of law"); see also United States v. Union Supply Co., 215 U.S. 50, 55 (1909) (stating that corporations are "as capable of a 'willful' breach of the law" as are individuals) (citation (91.) See MODEL PENAL CO......
-
Under-breaded shrimp and other high crimes: addressing the over-criminalization of commercial regulation.
...There has been a similar explosion of federal criminal law applicable to individuals, but that is beyond the scope of this article. (36.) 215 U.S. 50 (1909). (37.) Id. at 54-55. (38.) Id. (39.) Id. at 54. (40.) See id. at 54-55. (41.) See, e.g., United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 411 (1......