Friedman v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Friedman v. United States

236 F. 816, 150 C.C.A. 653, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2342

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 1916

DocketNo. 2371

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 F. 816 (Friedman 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

Friedman v. United States, 236 F. 816, 150 C.C.A. 653, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2342 (7th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Is an indictment valid which, after alleging that defendants expected an involuntary petition in bankruptcy to be filed against one of them and an adjudication and the appointment of trustee in bankruptcy to follow, charged a conspiracy to conceal from such trustee certain property belonging to the expected bankrupt and specifically described, and set forth overt acts done pursuant to the conspiracy, but did not allege that such owner was a bankrupt at the time of the conspiracy?

U. S. v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78, 35 Sup. Ct. 682, 59 L. Ed. 1211, in our judgment, is conclusive of the question. While the only matter discussed in the opinion is whether the limitation period provided in the Bankruptcy Act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544) or the general limitation statute is applicable to such an offense, the indictment upheld by the court was substantially identical with that in the instant case. The express contention of counsel for the government in that case that it is unnecessary in such a conspiracy charge to aver or prove that bankruptcy proceedings had in fact been instituted was necessarily sustained when the indictment was held valid. See, too, Radin v. U. S., 189 Fed. 571-575, 111 C. C. A. 6.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Is an indictment valid which, after alleging that defendants expected an involuntary petition in bankruptcy to be filed against one of them and an adjudication and the appointment of trustee in bankruptcy to follow, charged a conspiracy to conceal from such trustee certain property belonging to the expected bankrupt and specifically described, and set forth overt acts done pursuant to the conspiracy, but did not allege that such owner was a bankrupt at the time of the conspiracy?

U. S. v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78, 35 Sup. Ct. 682, 59 L. Ed. 1211, in our judgment, is conclusive of the question. While the only matter discussed in the opinion is whether the limitation period provided in the Bankruptcy Act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544) or the general limitation statute is applicable to such an offense, the indictment upheld by the court was substantially identical with that in the instant case. The express contention of counsel for the government in that case that it is unnecessary in such a conspiracy charge to aver or prove that bankruptcy proceedings had in fact been instituted was necessarily sustained when the indictment was held valid. See, too, Radin v. U. S., 189 Fed. 571-575, 111 C. C. A. 6.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 F. 816, 150 C.C.A. 653, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-united-states-ca7-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack