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.
United States v. Humphries and Mock, 1892 — 149 U.S. 277 · caselaw · US
General
United States v. Humphries and Mock
149 U.S. 27737 L. Ed. 734·Supreme Court of the United States·1892
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
No. 235,
United States v. Humphries and Mock.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Submitted April 21, 1893. Decided May 1, 1893-Brewer, J.: This case is so nearly like the case just decided, that-it is unnecessary 'to refer to the facts in detail. There also appears in this a further matter of error, in that the court, over the objections of the government, permitted the defendants to introduce evidence that their mill was not profitable. Certainly, whether they made money or not, does not affect the right of the-government to recover, or'the measure of recovery.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Parker for plaintiffs in error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY]
The judgment in this case will also be Reversed, and a new trial-ordered.