Appellant was charged in a joint indictment with knowingly receiving stolen goods, in violation of title 18, section 409, U.S.C.A. Upon written waiver of jury trial, the court heard testimony and took the case under advisement. Without rendering any decision upon the merits, the court dismissed the case upon the ground that the indictment was faulty. Appellant was reindicted jointly with three other defendants for the same offense. He moved for discharge on the ground of former jeopardy, but the court overruled his plea. A jury was waived, the case was submitted on the evidence adduced under the first indictment, and appellant was found guilty as charged, and duly sentenced.

The sole question is whether the court erred in overruling the plea of former jeopardy. Two of the essentials of legal jeopardy are that the court have jurisdiction, and that the indictment be valid. Here the court had jurisdiction, but the first indictment was invalid. It failed to designate the place or vehicle from which the goods were stolen. Under title 18, section 409, U.S.C.A., this averment is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The faulty indictment in its material portions alleged that appellant received stolen goods, “knowing that same. had been stolen from the Interstate Motor Freight Company, Detroit, Michigan, while in the course of transportation in interstate commerce from the Standard Manufacturing Company, Indianapolis, *18 Indiana, to The Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Cleveland, Ohio.” The statute 1 expressly covers the stealing of goods from certain designated places, and the indictment must aver specifically the place from which the goods were stolen. United States v. Cohen, 274 F. 596 (C.C.A.3); United States v. Moynihan, 258 F. 529 (C.C.A.3). Cf. Bloch v. United States, 261 F. 321 (C.C.A.5) ; Kasle v. United States, 233 F. 878 (C.C.A.6).

Since the first indictment was fatally defective appellant was not in double jeopardy upon trial under the reindictment.

The judgment is affirmed.