U S v. UNION SUPPLY CO - 215 U.S. 50 :: PreCYdent Search Engine

215 U.S. 50 U S v. UNION SUPPLY CO

Citation: 215 U.S. 50

Neutral citation: 1909 US 169

0 votes

Legal status: Precedential

39 visits

Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court

Decision date: Monday, 8 November 1909

Tags related to the opinion: no Tags

Citation: list of in going and out going citations to the present case

Citator: list of judicial treatments of the present case

Pages 1-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501-600 601-700 701-800 801-900 901-1000 1001-1100 1101-1200 1201-1300 1301-1400 1401-1500 1501-1600 1601-1700 1701-1800 1801-1860

Page 1, 215 U.S. 50, 50

U.S. Supreme Court

U S v. UNION SUPPLY CO, 215 U.S. 50 (1909)

215 U.S. 50

UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err.,v.

UNION SUPPLY COMPANY.

No. 120.

Argued October 13, 14, 1909.

Decided November 8, 1909.

Page 2, 215 U.S. 50, 51

Solicitor General Bowers for plaintiff in error.

Page 3, 215 U.S. 50, 52

Mr. Isaac R. Hitt, Jr., for defendant in error.

Page 4, 215 U.S. 50, 53

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an indictment of a corporation for wilfully violating

Page 5, 215 U.S. 50, 54

the 6th section of the act of Congress of May 9, 1902, chap. 784, 6, 32 Stat. at L. 193, 197, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, pp. 636, 641. That section requires 'wholesale dealers' in oleomargarine, etc., to keep certain books and to make certain returns. It then goes on as follows: 'And any person who wilfully violates any of the provisions of this section shall, for each such offense, be fined not less than fifty dollars and not exceeding five hundred dollars, and imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than six months.' The corporation moved to quash the indictment, and the district court quashed it on the ground that the section is not applicable to corporations. Thereupon the United States brought this writ of error.

The argument for the defendant in error is drawn from an earlier decision by the same court. It is that 5 applies in express terms to corporations, and gives the court discretionary power to punish by either fine or imprisonment, or both; whereas, in 6, both punishments are imposed in all cases, and corporations are not mentioned; that it is impossible to imprison a corporation, and that the statute warrants no sentence that does not comply with its terms. United States v. Braun & Fitts, 158 Fed. 456. We are of opinion that this reasoning is unsound. In the first place, taking up the argument drawn from 5, that corporations were omitted intentionally from the requirements of 6, it is to be noticed that the 6th section of the present act copies its requirements from the act of October 1, 1890, chap. 1244, 41, 26 Stat. at L. 567, 621, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2235, which did not contain the penal clause. In its earlier form the enactment clearly applied to corporations, and when the same words were repeated in the later act it is not to be supposed that their meaning was changed. The words 'wholesale dealers' are as apt to embrace corporations here as they are in 2, requiring such dealers to pay certain taxes. We have no doubt that they were intended to embrace them. The words 'any person' in the penal clause are as broad as 'wholesale dealers' in the part prescribing the duties. U. S. Rev. Stat. 1, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3. It is impossible to believe that corporations were inten-

Page 6, 215 U.S. 50, 55

tionally excluded. They are as much within the mischief aimed at as private persons, and as capable of a 'wilful' breach of the law. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 , 53 L. ed. 613, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304. If the defendant escapes, it does so on the single ground that, as it cannot suffer both parts of the punishment, it need not suffer one.

It seems to us that a reasonable interpretation of the words used does not lead to such a result. If we compare 5, the application of one of the penalties rather than of both is made to depend, not on the character of the defendant, but on the discretion of the judge; yet, there, corporations are mentioned in terms. See Hawke v. E. Hulton & Co.

Page 7, 215 U.S. 50, 56