Summary

Byron White United States v. Cook (384 U.S. 257…

The United States counters that the choice of the language used in the predecessor executive provision, rather than that in the predecessor employee provision, was merely a stylistic preference not evidencing any intent to narrow coverage of employee offenders and that a 'firm' may be any business organization, whether individually owned or otherwise.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White United States v. Cook (384 U.S. 257…

The question presented is whether 18 U.S.C. § 660 (1964 ed.) , which prohibits certain embezzlements by employees of 'any firm, association, or corporation engaged in commerce as a common carrier,' [1] applies to the conduct of an employee of an individual doing business as a common carrier. The indictment in this case charged that, while riding on his employer's truck, appellee, 'a truck driver for Tolbert Hawkins, an individual engaged in commerce as a common carrier,' embezzled approximately $200 from funds of his employer accruing from an interstate shipment of bananas.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White United States v. Cook (384 U.S. 257…

Dictionary of Foreign Trade 308 (Henius, 2d ed. 1947) ('the name or title under which one or more persons do business') .↑ The two provisions are identical and read as follows:↑ A random sampling of 1,500 of 11,700 ICC-certificated Class III motor carriers of property (i. e., those with an annual revenue of less than $200,000) showed that at the end of 1964 almost 40% were individually owned and operated. About 1% operated in partnership form, and the remainder operated as corporations.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature