United States v. Jolly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The next objection is that the indictment is only for the forgery of an indorsement upon the post-office warrant, which is not within the Revised Statutes, (section 5414,) but is at most only a common-law or state offense, of which this court has no jurisdiction. This is a very narrow view of the statute, and trims ittodimensions that would very materially impair its usefulness, and leave the obligations and securities of the United States at the mercy of forgers and counterfeiters. I do not comprehend why the name of the payee is not as much a part of the instrument as that of him who, in behalf of the United States, signs the warrant or check. * * * The very fact that the warrant is made payable ‘to order, ’ raí her than ‘to bearer, ’ when it would pass by delivery, like a bank-note, shows that the practice of so writing them is intended to bring the indorsement within the protection of the law against forgery. It constitutes about all the value there is in so writing them, and the writing of the name of the payee falsely and fraudulently on the back is just as much a forgery of the instrument as any other falso writing concerning it would be. It is in every legal sense a part of the instrument itself.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Albert

2. “.. ‘<The last objection is that the second count should be.complete within itseif, and should not refer to the other count in aid of its averments. That is undoubtedly the best form of good pleading., /Whether a count drawn- as this is could he sustained at common law is very doubtful. Perhaps it could not, and there seems to be authority both ways. But our Itevised Statutes (.section 1025) forbid us to quash the indictment for that defect of form, as I think this clearly is; and we must therefore amend it by overlooking the defect, and reading the averments as if the words of the first count referred to as describing the warrant were inserted in this second count itself. It is not a technical amendment, hut amounts to the same thing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wright v. United States