Pereira v. United States
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 1 (1954)
- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Pereira and Brading (defendants) were convicted of violating the mail-fraud statute, among others, after working together to defraud a wealthy widow. Pereira and Brading met the widow, Gertrude Joyce, while she was visiting Texas from New Mexico. Brading represented himself as a prosperous oil man, and Pereira romanced Joyce. Pereira and Joyce married, and Pereira then convinced Joyce to give him money to buy a car and a hotel. She agreed, and Pereira bought the car with a check she endorsed over to him. Joyce also agreed to give Pereira $35,000 to buy the hotel. Joyce requested the check from her bank in California and endorsed it over to Pereira. Pereira then endorsed the check for collection at a bank in Texas. Pereira and Brading then disappeared from Joyce’s life with the car and her money. Joyce divorced Pereira, and Pereira was eventually caught and charged. The evidence at trial confirmed that Brading did not work in the oil industry, that Pereira told Joyce several lies about his personal life, and that there had never been a hotel Pereira wanted to or did in fact purchase. Pereira was convicted and appealed. He did not deny his plan to defraud Joyce but argued that because he had not mailed the $35,000 check himself from California to Texas, the second element of the mail-fraud statute, a mailing of a letter, had not been met.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warren, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
