From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Grimaud

U.S.
Mar 14, 1910
216 U.S. 614 (1910)

Opinion

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

Nos. 490, 491.

Argued February 28, 1910. Decided March 14, 1910.

Quaere and not decided by this court whether the provision in the act of June 4, 1897, c. 2, 30 Stat. 30, 35, empowering the Secretary of Agriculture to make regulations in regard to grazing sheep on a forest reserve is unconstitutional as delegating legislative power to an executive officer and empowering such officer to create a criminal offense. 170 F. 205, affirmed by a divided court.

THESE were writs of error to the District Court under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, as defendants in error were indicted for grazing sheep upon the Sierra Forest Reserve without a permit in violation of Regulation 45, established by the Secretary of Agriculture concerning stock grazing upon forest reserves under the act of June 4, 1897, c. 2, 30 Stat. 11, 35.

The District Court sustained demurrers on the ground that the act of 1897 delegated legislative power to an executive officer and that the act is unconstitutional because it empowers an executive officer to create a criminal offense.

The Solicitor General, with whom The Attorney General was on the brief, for the plaintiff in error.

No appearance for the defendants in error.


Judgments affirmed by a divided court.

April 18, 1910, petitions for rehearing granted and cases restored to the docket.


Summaries of

United States v. Grimaud

U.S.
Mar 14, 1910
216 U.S. 614 (1910)
Case details for

United States v. Grimaud

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES v . GRIMAUD. UNITED STATES v . INDA

Court:U.S.

Date published: Mar 14, 1910

Citations

216 U.S. 614 (1910)

Citing Cases

United States v. Grimaud

The indictment concluded, "contrary to the form of the statutes of the United States in such case made and…

United States v. Rizzinelli

It is one about which the trial courts are at variance. (United States v. Domingo (C.C.) 152 F. 566; United…