Webb v. United States, No. 370

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDAY
Citation63 L.Ed. 497,249 U.S. 96,39 S.Ct. 217
Docket NumberNo. 370
Decision Date03 March 1919
PartiesWEBB et al. v. UNITED STATES

249 U.S. 96
39 S.Ct. 217
63 L.Ed. 497
WEBB et al.

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 370.
Argued Jan. 16, 1919.
Decided March 3, 1919.

Messrs. Ralph Davis and Ike W. Crabtree, both of Memphis, Tenn., for Webb and another.

Page 97

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Porter, for the United States.

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the provisions of the Harrison Narcotic Drug Act (Act Dec. 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Stat. 785; Comp. St. §§ 6287g-6287q), considered in United States v. Doremus (No. 367, just decided: 249 U. S. 86, 39 Sup. Ct. 214, 63 L. Ed. 496. The case comes here upon a certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. From the certificate it appears that Webb and Goldbaum were convicted and sentenced in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee on a charge of conspiracy (section 37, Penal Code [Act March 4, 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1096; Comp. St. § 10201]) to violate the Harrison Narcotic Law. While the certificate states that the indictment is inartificial, it is certified to be sufficient to support a prosecution upon the theory that Webb and Goldbaum intended to have the latter violate the law by using the order blanks (section 1 of the act) for a prohibited purpose.

The certificate states:

'If section 2, rightly construed, forbids sales to a non-registrable user, and if such prohibition is constitutional, we next meet the question whether such orders as Webb gave to applicants are 'prescription,' within the meaning of exception (b) in section 2.

'We conclude that the case cannot be disposed of without determining the construction and perhaps the constitutionality of the law in certain particulars, and for the purpose of certification, we state the facts as follows assuming, as for this purpose we must do, that whatever the evidence tended to show, in aid of the prosecution, must be taken as a fact:

'Webb was a practicing physician and Goldbaum a retail druggist, in Memphis. It was Webb's regular cus tom

Page 98

and practice to prescribe morphine for habitual users, upon their application to him therefor. He furnished these 'prescriptions,' not after consideration of the applicant's individual case, and in such quantities and with such direction as, in his judgment, would tend to cure the habit, or as might be necessary or helpful in an attempt to break the habit, but with such consideration and rather in such quantities as the applicant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 practice notes
  • United Sttaes v. Cortés–Cabán, Nos. 09–2094
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 10, 2012
    ...42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619 (1922); Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214 (1920); Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 39 S.Ct. 217, 63 L.Ed. 497 (1919). As courts tightened up on those medical treatments they deemed to fall within the legal provisions of the ......
  • Gonzales v. Oregon, No. 04-623.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 17, 2006
    ...as a matter of federal law—since that is an interpretation of "prescription" that we ourselves have adopted. Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96 (1919), was a prosecution under the Harrison Act of a doctor who wrote prescriptions of morphine "for the purpose of providing the user with morphi......
  • U.S. v. Smith, No. 07-2956.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • July 28, 2009
    ...of a prescription ... a bona fide physician — patient relationship must exist." White, 399 F.2d at 816-18; see also Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 99-100, 39 S.Ct. 217, 63 L.Ed. 497 (1919) (holding under the Harrison Act that when a doctor provided morphine to a habitual user "for the ......
  • United States v. Moore, No. 71-1252.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 14, 1973
    ...the terms "legitimate practice" and "good faith" as used in 486 F.2d 1221 the Act. In the first of these cases, Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 39 S.Ct. 217, 63 L.Ed. 497 (1919), the Supreme Court held that the medical exemption was unavailable to a doctor who had sold drugs and prescri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
72 cases
  • United Sttaes v. Cortés–Cabán, Nos. 09–2094
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 10, 2012
    ...42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619 (1922); Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214 (1920); Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 39 S.Ct. 217, 63 L.Ed. 497 (1919). As courts tightened up on those medical treatments they deemed to fall within the legal provisions of the ......
  • Gonzales v. Oregon, No. 04-623.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 17, 2006
    ...as a matter of federal law—since that is an interpretation of "prescription" that we ourselves have adopted. Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96 (1919), was a prosecution under the Harrison Act of a doctor who wrote prescriptions of morphine "for the purpose of providing the user with morphi......
  • U.S. v. Smith, No. 07-2956.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • July 28, 2009
    ...of a prescription ... a bona fide physician — patient relationship must exist." White, 399 F.2d at 816-18; see also Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 99-100, 39 S.Ct. 217, 63 L.Ed. 497 (1919) (holding under the Harrison Act that when a doctor provided morphine to a habitual user "for the ......
  • United States v. Moore, No. 71-1252.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 14, 1973
    ...the terms "legitimate practice" and "good faith" as used in 486 F.2d 1221 the Act. In the first of these cases, Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 39 S.Ct. 217, 63 L.Ed. 497 (1919), the Supreme Court held that the medical exemption was unavailable to a doctor who had sold drugs and prescri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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