Davis v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Davis v. United States

125 F.2d 144, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4331

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 1942

DocketNo. 8867

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 125 F.2d 144 (Davis v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. United States, 125 F.2d 144, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4331 (6th Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon an appeal from a judgment and sentence under the Mail Fraud Statute, 18 U.S.C.A. §.338, the sole question raised by the appellant is that the letter in evidence deposited in the United States mails' was not so deposited until after the consummation of the fraud; that in consequence the offense was not cognizable under the statute and that the District Court was without jurisdiction to try the offender.

It appearing, however, that a reasonable inference from the tenor of the letter, is that it is in continuance of the fraud, or for the purpose of aiding in the retention of its fruits, to lull the victim into a false sense of security and to postpone the taking of action with respect to his loss, and to delay discovery, Therefore,

Upon the authority of Bogy v. United States, 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 734, and Preeman v. United States, 7 Cir., 244 F. 1, the judgment in the above cause is hereby affirmed and the sentence therein imposed sustained.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon an appeal from a judgment and sentence under the Mail Fraud Statute, 18 U.S.C.A. §.338, the sole question raised by the appellant is that the letter in evidence deposited in the United States mails' was not so deposited until after the consummation of the fraud; that in consequence the offense was not cognizable under the statute and that the District Court was without jurisdiction to try the offender.

It appearing, however, that a reasonable inference from the tenor of the letter, is that it is in continuance of the fraud, or for the purpose of aiding in the retention of its fruits, to lull the victim into a false sense of security and to postpone the taking of action with respect to his loss, and to delay discovery, Therefore,

Upon the authority of Bogy v. United States, 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 734, and Preeman v. United States, 7 Cir., 244 F. 1, the judgment in the above cause is hereby affirmed and the sentence therein imposed sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 F.2d 144, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-united-states-ca6-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack