Wiley Blount Rutledge

Name: United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court
Author: Wiley Blount Rutledge

United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Wiley Blount Rutledge. It explores elements such as checks, transportation and Kann.

Quotes from United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court (Wiley Blount Rutledge)

Wiley Blount Rutledge, United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court

“ A word will dispose of the idea that Sheridan did not 'cause' the transportation. Certainly he knew the checks would have to be sent to the Missouri bank for collection. Given the proven forgery and uttering, no other conclusion would be possible. Necessarily, too, it would follow he intended the paying bank to send the checks there for that purpose. He knew they must cross state lines to be presented. One who induces another to do exactly what he intends, and does so by defrauding him, hardly can be held not to 'cause' what is so done. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge, United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court

“ It is true that amended § 3 forbids the interstate transportation of forged and counterfeited securities, and forging and counterfeiting tools, 'With unlawful or fraudulent intent,' while the earlier proscribed transportation of stolen goods, securities and money is not required in terms to be done with such an intent, but only with knowledge that they have been stolen. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge, United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court

“ Whether or not Congress had in mind primarily such small scale transactions as Sheridan's, his operation was covered literally and we think purposively. Had this not been intended, appropriate exception could easily have been made.
If it is assumed that the evidence supports the conclusions on which the case has come here, [19] Sheridan perpetrated three frauds, including two forgeries, in one day. Forgery, thus repeated, is not amateurish, though the amounts obtained are small. Notoriously the crime done once becomes habitual. And forgers are notoriously itinerant. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge, United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court

“ Nor can we treat forged checks differently from other securities, either because they are forged or because the forgery is done by 'little fellows' who perhaps were not the primary aim of the congressional fire. The statute expressly includes checks. [18] It makes no distinction between large and small operators. There is no room for implying such a distinction in view of the absence of the $5,000 limitation with respect to the transportation of forged checks. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge, United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court

“ The Government answers with essentially two arguments. One is drawn primarily from the embodiment of amended § 3 in the National Stolen Property Act. It is shortly that the offense takes color and character from the other offenses with which it is associated in the context of § 3. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge, United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court

“ It is that, upon the assumption Sheridan may be held to have 'caused' the transportation, still he did not do so with the requisite 'unalwful or fraudulent intent,' namely, to aid in completing the fraud. These views are bolstered by strong reliance on the Kann decision. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge, United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court

“ Sheridan
Argued: Nov. 12, 13, 1946. --- Decided: Dec 23, 1946
Sheridan was indicted on three counts for having violated § 3 of the National Stolen Property Act, as amended, 48 Stat. 795, 53 Stat. 1178, 18 U.S.C. §§ 413-419, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 413-419. A jury found him guilty on all counts. [1] On the authority of Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 65 S.Ct. 148, 89 L.Ed. 88, 157 A.L.R. 406, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the conviction, 152 F.2d 57. Because of doubt as to the applicability of the Kann case, we granted certiorari. [2] 328 U.S. 829, 66 S.Ct. 1020. ”

Wiley Blount Rutledge

Summary

Quotes from United States v. Sheridan — Opinion of the Court (Wiley Blount Rutledge)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature