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.
General
UNITED STATES v. MAYRAND
154 U.S. 55218 L. Ed. 699·Supreme Court of the United States·1867
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
UNITED STATES v. MAYRAND.
certificate of division in opinion from the circuit court OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA,
No. 187.
Submitted May 15, 1867.
Decided May 16, 1867.
United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, followed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Attorney General and Mr. J. Hubley Ashton for plaintiff.
No appearance for defendant. •
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Chase]
Mr. Chief Justice Chase
delivered the opinion of the court.
This cause comes here, upon a certificate of division of opinion, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.
Mayrand was indicted for selling liquor to an.Indian of the Chippewa Tribe, which tribe was then under the charge of an Indian agent, duly appointed by the government of the United States. He demurred to the indictment; and the question certified is, whether the act of Congress, under which the indictment was framed, has any force or validity in this case.
In the case of The United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, this very question was fully discussed and finally decided.
An affirmative answer must be certified to the Circuit Court.