Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

United States Vs. Alford

United States vs Alford

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-16-1927
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/94749

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
274 U.S. 264
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Alford

Excerpt

..... viz., "forest, timber, or other inflammable material," so that the statute applies where the fire is on private lands, but "near" to inflammable grass on the public domain. p. 274 u. s. 266 . page 274 u. s. 265 2. the act, so construed, is constitutional, for congress may prohibit the doing of acts upon privately owned lands that imperil the publicly owned forests. p. 274 u. s. 267 . 3. the word "near" is not too indefinite. p. 274 u. s. 267 . reversed. error to a judgment of the district court sustaining a demurrer to an indictment. page 274 u. s. 266 mr. justice holmes delivered the opinion of the court. alford was indicted for building a fire near inflammable grass and other inflammable material and timber situated upon the public domain of the united states, and for not extinguishing the same before leaving it, by reason of which the said grass and other material was burned. the count was demurred to on the ground that the statute concerned does not cover the building or leaving of fires at any place except upon a forest reservation, and that, if it attempts to cover fires elsewhere, it is unconstitutional and void. the district court construed the statute in the same way, and sustained the demurrer. a writ of error was taken by the united states. by the act of june 25, 1910, c. 431, § 6, 36 stat. 855, 857, amending § 53 of the penal code of march 4, 1909: "whoever shall build a fire in or near any forest, timber, or other inflammable material upon the public domain, or upon any indian reservation, or lands belonging to or page 274 u. s. 267 occupied by any tribe of indians under the authority of the united states, or upon any indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the united states, shall, before leaving said fire, totally extinguish the.....

Full Judgment

United States v. Alford - 274 U.S. 264 (1927)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264 (1927)

United States v. Alford

No. 983

Argued April 28, 1927

Decided May 16, 1927

274 U.S. 264

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SYLLABUS

1. In the Act of June 25, 1910, providing that

"whoever shall build a fire in or near any forest, timber, or other inflammable material upon the public domain, or upon any Indian reservation . . . shall, before leaving said fire, totally extinguish the same, and whoever shall fail to do so shall"

be punished, etc., the words "upon the public domain" are to be referred to the words immediately preceding, viz., "forest, timber, or other inflammable material," so that the statute applies where the fire is on private lands, but "near" to inflammable grass on the public domain. P. 274 U. S. 266 .

Page 274 U. S. 265

2. The Act, so construed, is constitutional, for Congress may prohibit the doing of acts upon privately owned lands that imperil the publicly owned forests. P. 274 U. S. 267 .

3. The word "near" is not too indefinite. P. 274 U. S. 267 .

Reversed.

Error to a judgment of the district court sustaining a demurrer to an indictment.

Page 274 U. S. 266

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.

Alford was indicted for building a fire near inflammable grass and other inflammable material and timber situated upon the public domain of the United States, and for not extinguishing the same before leaving it, by reason of which the said grass and other material was burned. The count was demurred to on the ground that the statute concerned does not cover the building or leaving of fires at any place except upon a forest reservation, and that, if it attempts to cover fires elsewhere, it is unconstitutional and void. The district court construed the statute in the same way, and sustained the demurrer. A writ of error was taken by the United States.

By the Act of June 25, 1910, c. 431, § 6, 36 Stat. 855, 857, amending § 53 of the Penal Code of March 4, 1909:

"Whoever shall build a fire in or near any forest, timber, or other inflammable material upon the public domain, or upon any Indian reservation, or lands belonging to or

Page 274 U. S. 267

occupied by any tribe of Indians under the authority of the United States, or upon any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, shall, before leaving said fire, totally extinguish the same, and whoever shall fail to do so shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

The court read the words "upon the public domain" as qualifying the phrase "whoever shall build a fire." We are of opinion that this was error, and that "upon the public domain" should be referred to the words immediately preceding it: "forest, timber, or other inflammable material." So interpreted, they make better English and better sense. The purpose of the Act is to prevent forest fires, which have been one of the great economic misfortunes of the country. The danger depends upon the nearness of the fire, not upon the ownership of the land where it is built. It is said that the construction that we adopt has been followed by the Department of Justice and by a number of cases in the district courts ever since the passage of the original Act of February 24, 1897, c. 313, 29 Stat. 594. We regard the meaning as too plain to be shaken by the suggestion that criminal statutes are to be construed strictly. They also are to be construed with common sense.

The statute is constitutional. Congress may prohibit the doing of acts upon privately owned lands that imperil the publicly owned forests. Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518 . See McKelvey v. United States, 260 U. S. 353 . The word "near" is not too indefinite. Taken in connection with the danger to be prevented, it lays down a plain enough rule of conduct for anyone who seeks to obey the law.

Judgment reversed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial