United States v. Birdsall
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. The facts, which involve the validity of indictments under §§ 39 and 117, Criminal Code, for giving and accepting bribes, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hughes
Separate indictments were found against the several defendants. There were two indictments against the defendant Birdsall (which were consolidated) 'charging him with having given to Brents and Van Wert, respectively, a bribe in violation of § 39 of the Criminal Code. The indictments against Brents and Van Wert were for accepting the bribes in violation of § 117. Demurrer to each indictment, upon the ground that it charged no offense, was sustained by the District Court. 206 Fed. Rep. 818. The cases are brought here under the Criminal Appeals Act. March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246.
In view…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Haas v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- United States v. PattenSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- United States v. MacDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
- Benson v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- United States v. GeorgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
3Cited by197 opinions
- United States v. ClassicSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Barr v. MatteoSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- United States v. Borden Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Free v. BlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
192 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.