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. MESA, 1913 — 228 U.S. 533 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES v. MESA
228 U.S. 53357 L. Ed. 953·Supreme Court of the United States·1913
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. MESA.
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR- THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
No. 864.
Argued April 11, 1913.
Decided May 5, 1913.
Decided on authority of preceding case.
199 Fed. Rep. 518, reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Adkins, with whom Mr. Karl W. Kirchwey was on the brief, for the United States.
No appearance for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice White]
Mr. Chief Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant in error was indicted upon the charge that within the jurisdiction of the court he “did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully and with intent to export the munitions of war hereinafter described from the said city of El Paso to Ciudad Juarez, in Mexico, make a certain shipment of certain munitions of war, to-wit: three thousand (3,000) Winchester rifle cartridges of the calibre 44; that is to say,' did make a shipment of said munitions of war from said city of El Paso and with said Ciudad Juarez, in Mexico, as the destination of said shipment, by transporting the same in a wagon from a point,” etc.
A demurrer to the indictment was heard along with the demurrer to the indictment in the case against Chavez, which we have just decided. The demurrer was sustained and the indictment quashed upon the opinion rendered in the Chavez Case. The ruling which we have just made in that case is therefore applicable to this and necessitates a reversal.
Judgment reversed.