Supreme Court of the United States, 1894

Evans v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 14, 1894 · Brown

153 U.S. 608; 14 S. Ct. 939; 38 L. Ed. 839; 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2207 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Hampton L. Carson, (with whom were Mr. J. Levering Jones and Mr. Rufus E. Shapley on the brief,) for plaintiff in error., Mr. Assistant A ttorney General Conrad for defendants in error.

Cases that cite this one

32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

C. M. Spring Drug Co. v. United States (8th Cir. 1926)
Street v. New York (Supreme Court of the United States 1969)
Newell Chilton Sells v. United States (10th Cir. 1959)
United States v. Ralph Cioffi (2d Cir. 1958)
O. K. Armstrong v. United States (8th Cir. 1956)
Wayne S. Marteney v. United States (10th Cir. 1955)
United States v. Joseph Iacullo (7th Cir. 1955)
State v. Allen (Superior Court of Delaware 1955)
Shorter v. State (Ind. 1954)
United States v. Gordon (7th Cir. 1952)
Barnes v. United States (8th Cir. 1952)
United States v. Markham (7th Cir. 1951)
Bowen v. United States (8th Cir. 1946)
United States v. Murphy (3d Cir. 1941)
Jeznis v. United States (3d Cir. 1933)
Barry v. United States (3d Cir. 1933)
Belcher v. United States (8th Cir. 1931)
Abrams v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1919)
People ex rel. Maurer v. Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1956)
United States v. Keith (United States Court of Military Appeals 1952)
McNary v. State (Ohio 1934)
Brooks v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1925)
Bacigalupi v. United States (9th Cir. 1921)
Savage v. United States (8th Cir. 1920)
Kreuzer v. United States (8th Cir. 1918)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

*609As the verdict of guilty was rendered upon all the counts, and the sentence did not exceed that which might properly have been imposed upon conviction under any single count, such sentence is good if any such count is found to be sufficient! As the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth counts of this indictment are the same as the eighth, ninth, and tenth of the other indictment, which were held to be good, except that the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting the president instead of the cashier in the fraudulent misapplication of the Nettleton notes, and the twentieth bears the same resemblance to the fourteenth of the other, it follows that these counts are also good, and the judgment of the court below is, therefore,

Affirmed.

Mb. Justice Field dissented for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Evans v. United States, ante, 584.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.