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.
SCHMIDT v. UNITED STATES, 1924 — 2 F.2d 367 · caselaw · US
General
SCHMIDT v. UNITED STATES
2 F.2d 367·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1924
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
SCHMIDT v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
October 14, 1924.)
No. 3421.
Indictment and information <@=>196(4)—Insuffi-ciency of verification waived by going to trial without objection.
Insufficiency of verification supporting information is waived by accused going to trial without objection.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of Illinois. '
George Schmidt was convicted of crime, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
L. E. Stone, of Springfield, 111., for plaintiff in error.
Gertrude Warner Kindler, of Peoria, 111., for tbe United States.
Before EYANS and PAGE, Circuit Judges,'and GEIGER, District Judge.'
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Tbe information upon which plaintiff in error was convicted was supported by an an insufficient verification, and a reversal is now sought on account thereof. No objection was made to the information during the trial. It is asserted, however, that upon the motion in arrest of judgment this infirmity was pointed out, and, though such act does not appear of record, we accept this statement.
The decision in Farinelli v. United States (C. C. A.) 297 F. 198, covers the question so fully that we feel further discussion of it is unnecessary. The verification may he and is waived by the accused going to trial without objection. See, also, United States v. McDonald (D. C.) 293 F. 433; Abbott Bros. Co. v. United States, 242 F. 751, 155 C. C. A. 339.
The judgment is affirmed.