Harold Thomas Hermansen Alias Ford Hermansen v. United States

230 F.2d 173, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3247
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 23, 1956
Docket15569
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 230 F.2d 173 (Harold Thomas Hermansen Alias Ford Hermansen v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harold Thomas Hermansen Alias Ford Hermansen v. United States, 230 F.2d 173, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3247 (5th Cir. 1956).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On motion for rehearing the appellant urges strongly that since, as he argues, the purchasers of automobiles from him under Texas law obtained good title thereto, prevailing over the claims of the Radcliff Finance Corporation, there was no fraud in his use of the mails to obtain duplicate Texas certificates of title for them. This argument presupposes that 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 requires the consummation of a fraudulent scheme, while quite the opposite is true. The statute provides:

“Whoever, having devised or intended to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud * * * for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Post Office Department * * * shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

The statute does not require that anyone actually be defrauded or even that a likelihood exist that some *174 one be defrauded. United States v. Cal-wer, D.C.Mont., 292 F. 1007. The evidence here plainly warranted a finding that there was a scheme to defraud and that mailings were made pursuant thereto. This was sufficient to constitute the offense defined in the statute.

The motion is overruled.

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

Related

United States v. Robert L. Strauss
283 F.2d 155 (Fifth Circuit, 1960)
Marshall T. Gregory v. United States
253 F.2d 104 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 F.2d 173, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-thomas-hermansen-alias-ford-hermansen-v-united-states-ca5-1956.