Hartman v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.
1Opinion of the Court
UURTON, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted and convicted for violation of Act Aug. 2, 1886, c. 8 10, § 1, 24 Stat. 209 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2228), as amended by Act May 9, 1902, c. 784, ’§ 1, 32 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 636), known as the “Oleomargarine Act.” The indictment contained 18 counts. Count 1 charges a violation of section 3 of the act by carrying on the business of manufacturers of oleomargarine without having paid the special tax required by law. Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 charge violations of the act by failing to destroy stamps on…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Adams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Morris v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
- Hardesty v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Hardesty v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908
3Cited by10 opinions
- Anderson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1921
- Ripper v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
- S. v. . WallaceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- City of Sioux Falls v. WalserSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1922
- United States v. OlmsteadDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1925
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.