United States v. Schoyer

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

United States v. Schoyer

27 F. Cas. 975, 2 Blatchf. 59, 1847 U.S. App. LEXIS 583

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1847

StatusPublished

This text of 27 F. Cas. 975 (United States v. Schoyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Schoyer, 27 F. Cas. 975, 2 Blatchf. 59, 1847 U.S. App. LEXIS 583 (circtsdny 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

BETTS, District Judge.

The instrument charged to have been forged was one which the supervisor of the revenue was authorized to issue by the act of 1799. The act of 1803 authorized the president to designate any other officer to fulfil the duties of supervisor. The indictment alleges that the collector issued the certificate ex officio. But no act of congress is shown, making him, as collector, supervisor also. If, from the fact of the collector’s acting in the capacity of supervisor, it is to be presumed that he was designated, under the act of 1803, to perform the duties of that office, the indictment is still bad, in averring that he issued the certificate ex officio. It should have averred his substitution in place of the supervisor, and the granting of the certificate by him in that capacity.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

BETTS, District Judge.

The instrument charged to have been forged was one which the supervisor of the revenue was authorized to issue by the act of 1799. The act of 1803 authorized the president to designate any other officer to fulfil the duties of supervisor. The indictment alleges that the collector issued the certificate ex officio. But no act of congress is shown, making him, as collector, supervisor also. If, from the fact of the collector’s acting in the capacity of supervisor, it is to be presumed that he was designated, under the act of 1803, to perform the duties of that office, the indictment is still bad, in averring that he issued the certificate ex officio. It should have averred his substitution in place of the supervisor, and the granting of the certificate by him in that capacity.

Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F. Cas. 975, 2 Blatchf. 59, 1847 U.S. App. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-schoyer-circtsdny-1847.