UNITED STATES
v.
HUTTO
Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court.
This is á writ of error under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 124,6, to review a judgment sustaining a demurrer to an indictment which, in essential respects, is precisely like that passed upon in United States v. Hutto, No. 691, just decided, ante, 524. In this cáse the demurrer was sustained upon the ground that § 2078, Rev. Stats., was inapplicable to transactions involving property with respect to which the Government; had no interest or control. Eor the reasons stated in the opinion, in No. 691, the judgment herein is
Reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Wright, 53 F.2d 300 (4th Cir. 1931)…2, 371, 32 S. Ct. 499, 56 L. Ed. 801; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Pennsylvania, 240 U. S. 319, 323, 36 S. Ct. 298, 60 L. Ed. 664; Railroad Co. v. Poniston, 18 Wall. 5, 21 L. Ed. 787; Choctaw, O. & G. R. R. v. Mackey, 256 U. S. 531, 537, 41 S. Ct. 582, 65 L. Ed. 1076; Central Pac. R. R. v. California, 162 U. S. 91, 126, 16 S. Ct. 766, 40 L. Ed. 903. These lands we take to be of that character.” In the case at bar Congress has expressly exempted the lands in question from taxation ; and, as these lands were paid…
-
MacDonald v. United States, 119 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1941)…s to which such a right has attached, the act declares that ‘all such lands over which such right of way shall pass shall be disposed of subject to such right of way.’ ” In Choctaw, O. & G. R. R. Co. v. Mackey, 256 U.S. 531, 538, 41 S.Ct. 582, 584, 65 L.Ed. 1076, the Supreme Court had occasion again to give attention to the rights granted by a statute granting a right of way to a railroad company. The statute was the act of Congress of February 18, 1888, ch. 13, 25 Stat. 35, cited and quoted in the footnote…1 / 2
-
Town of Clayton v. Colo. &. S. RY. Co., 51 F.2d 977 (10th Cir. 1931)…a common carrier, finds support in many adjudicated cases. See note 37 A. L. R. 243. However, a number of courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, have held otherwise. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Mackey, 256 U. S. 531, 41 S. Ct. 582, 65 L. Ed. 1076; Illinois C. R. Co. v. East Lake Fork Special Drainage Dist., 129 Ill. 417, 21 N. E. 925; Wabash Eastern R. Co. v. East Lake Fork Special Drainage Dist., 134 Ill. 384, 25 N. E. 781, 10 L. R. A. 285; Troy & L. R. Co. v. Kane, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 506, affir…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence