United States v. Midstate Horticultural Co. - 306 U.S. 161 (1939)


U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Midstate Horticultural Co., 306 U.S. 161 (1939)

United States v. Midstate Horticultural Co.

No. 28

Argued January 13, 1939

Decided January 30, 1939*

306 U.S. 161

Syllabus

The Elkins Act, § 1, as amended, denounces, among other offenses, the acts of granting or accepting any rebate or concession whereby property in interstate commerce shall be transported at a rate less than that named in the carrier's published tariffs. It provides that every violation shall be prosecuted in any court of the United States having jurisdiction of crimes within the district in which such violation was committed or through which the transportation may have been conducted, and that, whenever the offense is begun in one jurisdiction and completed in another, it may be dealt with in either. Held that, where the offenses charged were the granting and receiving of rebates or concessions in respect

Page 306 U. S. 162

of transportation which had been completed and paid for at tariff rates before the conception of the criminal transactions, venue was wrongly laid in a district through which the transportation was conducted but which was not the district in which the granting and receiving were alleged to have occurred. P. 306 U. S. 163.

Affirmed.

Appeals under the Criminal Appeals Act from judgments of the District Court sustaining demurrers to indictments.



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.