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. COOK, 1868 — 154 U.S. 555 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
UNITED STATES v. COOK
154 U.S. 55518 L. Ed. 835·Supreme Court of the United States·1868
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. COOK.
CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.
No. 102.
Argued February 12 and 13, 1868.
Decided February 24, 1868.
United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, followed.
The indictment in this case is sufficient.
The case is stated in the opinion.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Swayne]
Mr. Justice Swayne
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was certified up to this court from the Circuit Court of the United States for'the Southern District of Ohio, — the opinions of the judges of that court being opposed upon the points set forth in the certificate.
The first and third questions presented for our consideration are fully met by the opinion just delivered in the case of The United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385.
In accordance with that opinion they will be answered in the affirmative.
The second question relates to the sufficiency of the indictment in the particulars mentioned. We are of opinion that the indictment is sufficient: We deem this proposition so plain that any discussion of the subject is unnecessary.
Mr. Attorney General and Mr. J. Hubley Ashton for plaintiff.
Mr. H. Hunter for defendant.
This question will be answered accordingly.
The record shows that there is no foundation for the fourth question. It does not arise upon the indictment, and was abandoned by the defendant’s counsel in the argument at the bar.
This question, therefore, needs no answer.