United States v. Sullenberger, 211 U.S. 522 (1909)

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Sullenberger, 211 U.S. 522 (1909)

United States v. Sullenberger

No. 290

Argued December 16, 17, 1908

Decided January 4, 1909

211 U.S. 522

Syllabus

Decided on the authority of United States v. Biggs, ante, p. 211 U. S. 507.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 211 U. S. 524

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Sullenberger, 211 U.S. 522 (1909)

United States v. Sullenberger

No. 290

Argued December 16, 17, 1908

Decided January 4, 1909

211 U.S. 522

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Syllabus

Decided on the authority of United States v. Biggs, ante, p. 211 U. S. 507.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 211 U. S. 524

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, the United States seeks the reversal of the action of the court below in quashing an indictment, the writ of error being prosecuted directly from this Court upon the assumption that the case comes within the Act of March 2, 1907. The indictment charged a conspiracy in violation of § 5440, Rev.Stat., to unlawfully acquire land of the United States under the Timber and Stone Act. The court gave to the indictment the same construction which it affixed to the indictment in the case of United States v. Biggs, No. 289, which we have just decided, ante, p. 211 U. S. 507, and applied the same principles which it expounded in the opinion in that case. Disregarding mere immaterial differences in the form of the pleadings,

Page 211 U. S. 525

this case is like the Biggs case, and is disposed of by the opinion which we have just announced in that case.

Affirmed.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.