Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/303/1/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-12-12 06:14:39
Document Index: 653887237

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 9', '§ 8', '§ 8', 'art, 267', '§ 8']

Petitioner was convicted of violations of section 8(a) [Footnote 1] and (e) [Footnote 2] of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933. Act of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Government contends that the convictions should be sustained, irrespective of questions of the validity of any part of the statute, upon the ground that, the sentences being concurrent, the judgment should be affirmed if good under any one of the counts. In that view, the Government submits that petitioner consented to the judgment on count 12. The point is that petitioner was permitted to withdraw her plea of guilty to that count, although eleven days had intervened, while Rule 2(4) of the Criminal Appeals Rules requires such a motion to be made within ten days. The Government argues that the provision of the rule is mandatory, and hence the judgment, as one upon consent, should be chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
First. -- As to the counts under § 8(a). [Footnote 3] -- Counts 5 and 15, under that provision, charge that petitioner, being the holder of a second mortgage upon certain premises, in executing the consent to accept bonds of the Home Owners' Loan Corporation in full settlement, and for the purpose of influencing the action of the Corporation, knowingly and falsely stated that her claims were respectively in the sums of $590 and $650, whereas in fact they were respectively only in the sums of $285 and $150.
Petitioner argues that there is no allegation that a loan to the owner was made or approved, or that any payment was made to petitioner; that the second mortgagee's consent is temporary, and may be withdrawn; that it is not under oath, and that there is no warranty of the truth of the information given. Petitioner argues, further, that any statement in the consent of a second mortgagee as to the balance due cannot endanger or directly influence any loan made by the Corporation; that the second mortgagee is not an applicant, and that the practice in such cases negatives reliance on the consent, as the essential factors are the value of the property, as to which the Corporation makes its appraisal, and the earning capacity of the owner. None of these arguments is impressive. It does not lie with one knowingly making chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
United States v. Kapp, 302 U. S. 214; Madden v. United States, 80 F.2d 672. While the instant case is not one of conspiracy to obtain money from the United States, but one of false statements designed to mislead those acting under authority of the Government, the principle involved is the same. Apart from any question of the validity of the other provisions of the Home Owners' Loan Act, Congress was entitled to secure protection against false and misleading representations while the act was being administered, and the separability provision of the act, § 9, is clearly applicable. Utah Power Co. v. Pfost, 286 U. S. 165, 286 U. S. 184.
Second. -- As to the counts under § 8(e). [Footnote 4] -- The Government points out that count 14 is based on the statute as it was originally enacted in 1933. That count charges that petitioner, on or about April 1, 1934, made a contract with an applicant for a loan for the payment to petitioner of a certain sum for services in connection with the loan, and that the contract was not for
It appears that the board of directors, in January, 1934, specifically provided that "The ordinary charges authorized chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Section 8(e) is also separable from the other provisions of the statute. It is plainly designed to prevent the exploitation of applicants. It rests upon the same principle as that which underlies § 8(a) as to false and misleading representations to the officials of the Corporation. Congress was entitled not only to prevent misapplication of the public funds and to protect the officials concerned from being misled, but also to protect those who sought loans from being imposed upon by extravagant or improper charges for services in connection with their applications. This would be in the interest "not only of themselves and their families, but of the public." See Yeiser v. Dysart, 267 U. S. 540, 267 U. S. 541; Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502, 291 U. S. 535-536. Authority to penalize such exploitation while the enterprise is being conducted cannot be regarded as dependent upon the validity of the general plan. That plan might or might not be assailed. If assailed, a long period might elapse before final decision. Meanwhile, the governmental operations go on, and public funds and public transactions require the protection which it was the aim of these penal provisions to secure, whatever might be the ultimate determination as to the validity of the enterprise. United States v. Kapp, supra.
As a separable provision, the validity of § 8(e) is challenged as lacking the requisite definiteness under the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
due process clause. Section 8(e), as amended in 1934, omitted the words "in connection with a loan by the Corporation or an exchange of bonds or cash advance under this Act" which were in the original provision. But the context in the amended section sufficiently shows that the forbidden charges are those in connection with applications "for a loan, whether bond or cash." The resolution adopted by the board of directors sets forth the nature of the ordinary charges that "are authorized and required," and the power of Congress to provide for such action by the Board is not open to question. See United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506, 220 U. S. 521; United States v. Shreveport Grain Co., 287 U. S. 77, 287 U. S. 85. The phrase "like necessary services" in the section describes services which are cognate to those mentioned in the preceding clause "for examination and perfection of title and appraisal." And the resolution of the board, after stating the categories of authorized charges, provides for "any other necessary charge for like necessary services, as specifically approved by the Board of Directors." We think that the statute sets up an ascertainable standard, and is "sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties." Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391; United States ex rel. Handler v. Hill, 90 F.2d 573, 574. Compare Old Dearborn Co. v. Seagram Corp., 299 U. S. 183, 299 U. S. 196.
Third. -- We have considered the objections to the indictment which were open in the absence of a bill of exceptions. The Circuit Court of Appeals rightly held that the bill of exceptions was not settled and filed in time under the rule. But its decision was rendered before our decision in Ray v. United States, 301 U. S. 158, construing Rule 4 of the Criminal Appeals Rules. See also Forte v. United States, 302 U. S. 220. That rule gives to the Circuit Court of Appeals full supervision and control of the proceedings on appeal, "including the proceedings chanroblesvirtualawlibrary