Case: UNITED STATES v. FERGER ET AL.
Abbreviation: United States v. Ferger
Decision Date: 1919-06-02
Docket Number: NO. 2; No. 777
Citation: 250 U.S. 207
Volume: 250
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES v. FERGER ET AL.
Judges: Me. Justice Pitney dissents.
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. FERGER ET AL.
(NO. 2).
No. 777.
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.
Argued April 29, 1919.
Decided June 2, 1919.
Congress has power, under the commerce clause, to forbid and punish a conspiracy to forge and utter bills of lading for fictitious interstate shipments. United States v. Ferger, ante, 199.
256 Fed. Rep. 388, reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Brown, with whom Mr. Charles H. Weston was on the brief, for the United States.
Mr. Charles E. Hughes, with whom Mr. John C. Hermann and Mr. Sherman T. McPherson were on the brief, for defendants in error.
Mr. Francis B. James, by leave of court, filed a brief on behalf of the National Industrial Traffic League, as amicus curiae.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
This cáseas disposed of by the ruling just announced in No. 776, ante, 199. The indictment here was for conspiring to do the various acts charged in the previous case, that is, the fraudulent fabrication and uttering of the same fictitious bills of lading and the obtaining of money thereon by delivering the same to the Second National Bank of Cincinnati as collateral. The dejnurrer which was sus fcained by the court below in the previous case was also sustained as to this.
While there is a separate writ of error and a separate record in this case, it is conceded by all parties that the cases are in legal principle the same and that the decision of one concludes the other. It follows, therefore, that for the reasons stated in the previous case, No. 776, the judgment in this must be and it is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
And it is so ordered.
Me. Justice Pitney dissents.