Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

McIntyre v. United States

McIntyre v. United States, 49 F.2d 769 (6th Cir. 1931)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1931-05-15
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Prosecution for using the mails to defraud (section 338, tit. 18, USCA). This record presents no question for review except whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s necessarily implied finding that the. letters and statements signed by McIntyre were mailed or caused to be mailed within the district. We think there was. They were received by mail; they were dated at Cleveland ; Cleveland was the regularly established place of business of the company for whieh defendant was conducting the correspondence; he does not appear to have had any other place of business; and nothing appears throwing substantial doubt upon the natural inference that the letters were mailed at Cleveland.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed McIntyre v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
6 opinions
McINTYRE v. UNITED STATES,49 F.2d 769(6th Cir. 1931)
McINTYRE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 5885.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 15, 1931.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio; Samuel H. West, Judge.

Edward L. McIntyre was convicted of using the mails to defraud, and he appeals.

Affirmed.
O.D. Eshelman, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Wilfred J. Mahon, U.S. Atty., and Charles I. Russo, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Cleveland, Ohio.
Before DENISON and HICKS, Circuit Judges, and SIMONS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Prosecution for using the mails to defraud (section 338, tit. 18, USCA). This record presents no question for review except whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury's necessarily implied finding that the letters and statements signed by McIntyre were mailed or caused to be mailed within the district. We think there was. They were received by mail; they were dated at Cleveland; Cleveland was the regularly established place of business of the company for which defendant was conducting the correspondence; he does not appear to have had any other place of business; and nothing appears throwing substantial doubt upon the natural inference that the letters were mailed at Cleveland. The only other suggested possibility is that the letters or the signed statements directly involved might have been delivered by or for defendant to the addressee's agent in Cleveland, to be by him forwarded. This is possible; but it is merely surmise, and upon the whole is not probable. Such a possibility does not make it improper for the jury to adopt and act upon the otherwise natural inference. Compare Underwood v. U.S. (C.C.A. 6)267 F. 412,418; Levinson v. U.S. (C.C.A. 6)5 F.2d 567-569.

The judgment is affirmed.Page 886