UNITED STATES V. HEINZE, 218 U. S. 532 (1910)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 218 U. S. 532

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Heinze, 218 U.S. 532 (1910)

United States v. Heinze

No. 380

Argued November 3, 1910

Decided December 5, 1910

218 U.S. 532


Where the Circuit Court held the indictment insufficient because the facts alleged did not constitute a crime under the statute as it held that the latter should be construed, this Court has jurisdiction of an appeal by the government under the Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246.

Where the indictment charges an officer of a national bank with willful misapplication of funds of the bank, induced by and resulting in his advantage, with the illegal intent to injure and defraud the bank by receiving and discounting with its moneys an absolutely unsecured promissory note of a named party whereby the proceeds of the discount of the note were wholly lost to the bank, it sufficiently charges a violation of § 5209, Rev.Stat. It is not necessary to allege conversion by the officer of the bank and also by the recipient of the proceeds of the discount.

A charge that a note for an amount was received for discount which was wholly unsecured and which sum was lost to the bank amounts to a direct allegation that the loss was caused by the discounting.

A right of appeal is not essential to due process of law, Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, and neither due process of law nor equal protection of the law is denied to the accused by the Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, giving the government an appeal to this Court under certain conditions from judgments sustaining demurrers to, or motions to quash, indictments because the same appeal is not allowed to the accused in case the demurrer or motion to quash is overruled.

Even if, and not now decided, the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the United States, it can have no broader meaning when so applied than when applied to the states, and even if Congress may not discriminate in legislation, it has the power to classify, and the classification in the Act of March 2, 1907, is well within such power.

161 F.4d 5 reversed.

The facts, which involve the validity of an indictment

Page 218 U. S. 533

for misapplication of funds of a national bank under § 5209, Rev.Stat., are stated in the opinion.

Page 218 U. S. 537

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :