# Haas v. Henkel

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 21, 1910 · 216 U.S. 462

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418172

## Case

- **Full name:** Haas v. Henkel, United States Marshal
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 21, 1910
- **Citations:** 216 U.S. 462; 30 S. Ct. 249; 54 L. Ed. 569; 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1912
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brewer
- **Judges:** Lurton, Brewer
- **Cited by:** 264 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418172

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that one count alleging a conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit various substantive offenses was not duplicitous because the conspiracy allegations were specific
- holding that Section 371 is “broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government”
- describing indictment alleging two conspiracies: (1) to bribe a federal employee to cause the Department of Agriculture to issue false cotton crop reports, and (2

## Opinion text

Brewer, J.,
concurring.
I concur in affirming the orders of removal in these cases, but my concurrence must not be taken as holding that the indictments will stand the final test of validity or sufficiency. Assuming that there is a doubt in respect to these matters, as. I think there is, and as seems to be suggested by the opinion in No. 367, I am of the opinion that such doubt should be *483 settled by direct action in the court in which the indictments were returned and not in removal proceedings.
Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in the result, but reserves opinion whether the facts alleged in the indictment constitute a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418172. Public record. Not legal advice.