Abbott Bros. v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Abbott Bros. v. United States

242 F. 751, 155 C.C.A. 339, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1927

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 1917

DocketNo. 2437

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 242 F. 751 (Abbott Bros. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abbott Bros. v. United States, 242 F. 751, 155 C.C.A. 339, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1927 (7th Cir. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[1] The contention of the plaintiff in error that the information charging it with having violated the Pure-Food and Drugs Act, bearing the signature of the district attorney for the Northern district of Illinois, and attached to which information and made a part of it were four affidavits sworn to before notaries public, is insufficient to support a judgment because of the insufficiency of the acknowledgement, must be rejected. Weeks v. United States, 216 Fed. 292, 132 C. C. A. 436, L. R. A. 1915B, 651; United States v. Adams Express Co. (D. C.) 230 Fed. 531.

No warrant for arrest having been sought, the information signed by the United States district attorney was' sufficient, without any verification and without any supporting affidavits. It was unnecessary for the district attorney, who signed the information in his official character, to assert in the body of that document that he informed the court upon his oath as a government official of the facts therein set forth. It will be presumed he acted on his oath as an officer of the government.

[2] Nor do we think the plaintiff in error is in a position to raise this question for the first time in this court. Defects such as are here complained of are in any event waived, if not raised by suitable objection before trial: People v. Murphy, 56 Mich. 546, 23 N. W. 215; Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643, 26 South. 1022; State v. Osborn, 54 Kan. 473, 38 Pac. 572; State v. Brown, 181 Mo. 192, 79 S. W. 1111; Johnson v. State, 53 Neb. 103, 73 N. W. 463; State v. Pancoast, 5 N. D. 516, 67 N. W. 1052, 35 L. R. A. 518; Hammond v. State, 3 Wash. 171, 28 Pac. 334. See, also, on waiver oí informalities, Garland v. State of Washington, 232 U. S. 642, 34 Sup. Ct. 456, 58 L. Ed. 772.

Judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

[1] The contention of the plaintiff in error that the information charging it with having violated the Pure-Food and Drugs Act, bearing the signature of the district attorney for the Northern district of Illinois, and attached to which information and made a part of it were four affidavits sworn to before notaries public, is insufficient to support a judgment because of the insufficiency of the acknowledgement, must be rejected. Weeks v. United States, 216 Fed. 292, 132 C. C. A. 436, L. R. A. 1915B, 651; United States v. Adams Express Co. (D. C.) 230 Fed. 531.

No warrant for arrest having been sought, the information signed by the United States district attorney was' sufficient, without any verification and without any supporting affidavits. It was unnecessary for the district attorney, who signed the information in his official character, to assert in the body of that document that he informed the court upon his oath as a government official of the facts therein set forth. It will be presumed he acted on his oath as an officer of the government.

[2] Nor do we think the plaintiff in error is in a position to raise this question for the first time in this court. Defects such as are here complained of are in any event waived, if not raised by suitable objection before trial: People v. Murphy, 56 Mich. 546, 23 N. W. 215; Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643, 26 South. 1022; State v. Osborn, 54 Kan. 473, 38 Pac. 572; State v. Brown, 181 Mo. 192, 79 S. W. 1111; Johnson v. State, 53 Neb. 103, 73 N. W. 463; State v. Pancoast, 5 N. D. 516, 67 N. W. 1052, 35 L. R. A. 518; Hammond v. State, 3 Wash. 171, 28 Pac. 334. See, also, on waiver oí informalities, Garland v. State of Washington, 232 U. S. 642, 34 Sup. Ct. 456, 58 L. Ed. 772.

Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 F. 751, 155 C.C.A. 339, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbott-bros-v-united-states-ca7-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack