Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
BROOKS v. UNITED STATES, 1935 — 76 F.2d 871 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
BROOKS v. UNITED STATES
76 F.2d 871·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1935
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
BROOKS v. UNITED STATES.
No. 7655.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 1935.
Aaron Kravitch, of Savannah, Ga., for appellant.
Julian Hartridge, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Savannah, Ga.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BRYAN, Circuit Judge.]
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was convicted upon an indictment which charged him with passing and uttering a number of counterfeit Federal Reserve Bank notes, of the denomination of $100 each, with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 USCA § 265.
It was shown by the evidence without conflict that the notes were counterfeit, and that appellant passed them off on one Jenkins as payment for a quantity of intoxicating liquor which he bought at Savannah from Jenkins. The trial court submitted to the jury the question whether appellant knew the money was counterfeit, but rejected his contention that he could not be convicted because the laws of Georgia recognize no private right of property in intoxicating liquor. Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, L. R. A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685; Howell v. Mathieson, 146 Ga. 838, 92 S. E. 520. The manifest object of the statute here involved is to protect against all attempts at fraud upon the genuine monetary obligations or securities of the United States. It does not concern itself with the legality or illegality of the transaction in which money is passed, but is violated by any one who knowingly passes or utters counterfeit money as genuine. And so it is immaterial whether Jenkins had any right of property in the liquor, or could have sued to enforce payment of the purchase price.
The judgment is affirmed.