United States v. Durland
Citation: 161 U.S. 306 (1896)
Facts
Durland ran a scheme involving the sale of postdated bonds he had no intention of honoring, and used the mails to promote the scheme.
Issue
Does the mail fraud statute reach schemes that involve a promise to perform a future act with no present intent to perform it (as opposed to misrepresentations of present fact)?
Holding
Yes. The mail fraud statute reaches any scheme to defraud, including promises made with present fraudulent intent not to perform, even if no false statement of present fact is made.
Rule
A “scheme to defraud” under the mail fraud statute includes schemes involving false promises (promissory fraud) — the defendant need not make a false statement of existing fact; promising future performance with no intent to perform suffices.
Significance
- Established that mail fraud has a broader scope than common-law fraud (which traditionally required a misrepresentation of existing fact, not mere broken promises)
- Foundational case for mail fraud doctrine alongside Durland v. United States (same case)
- Note: often cited as Durland rather than the government’s name as appellee