| McBoyle v. United States | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued February 26–27, 1931 Decided March 9, 1931 |
||||||
| Full case name | McBoyle v. United States | |||||
| Citations | 283 U.S. 25 (more) 51 S. Ct. 340; 75 L. Ed. 816; 1931 U.S. LEXIS 861 |
|||||
| Prior history | Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The court held that since the law did not specify aircraft, it did not apply to aircraft. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Holmes, joined by unanimous | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. | ||||||
McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court case.
Contents |
McBoyle transported a plane that he knew to be stolen from Ottawa, Illinois to Guymon, Oklahoma.
McBoyle was accused of violating the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act[1]. The petitioners claimed that since the act did not specifically mention aircraft, it did not apply to aircraft.
The court held that, since other acts - such as the Tariff Act of 1930[2] - specifically excluded aircraft in its definition of a vehicle, the law must be interpreted narrowly. Justice Holmes stated:
Although it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider the text of the law before he murders or steals, it is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.
This case is a good example of the canon of ejusdem generis ("of the same kind, class, or nature").