DOUGLAS, J., dissenting in part. 358 U.S. it is an aggregation of individuals. That is to say, the Act adopted the aggregate rather than the entity theory. And that Act is in force in about three-fourths of the States. One who combs the reports today can find cases espousing the entity theory. But they are in the minority and consciously reject the other theory. As Professor Williston has shown, the main stream of American partnership law follows the British course of treating the partnership in the pluralistic sense. The Uniform Partnership Act, 63 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 196, 208. We should therefore assume that this criminal statute, written against that background, reflects the conventional aggregate, not the exceptional entity, theory of the partnership. We are dealing with a statute where liability depends on "culpable intent," as stated in Boyce Motor Lines, Inc., v. United States, 342 U. S. 337, 342. The partners could not be held criminally responsible for the acts of their employees. Gordon v. United States, 347 U. S. 909. The partnership, being no more than the aggregate of the partners, should stand on the same footing, unless Congress explicitly provides otherwise. Title 1 U. S. C. § 1 defines "person" in any Act of Congress to include a partnership, "unless the context indicates otherwise." The context of 18 U. S. C. § 835 does indicate otherwise for the Act punishes only those who knowingly violate it. The aggregate theory of partnership law teaches that there can be no vicarious criminal liability where no partner is culpable. If the rule of strict construction of a criminal statute is to obtain, 18 U. S. C. § 835 must be read narrowly to reflect the prevailing view of partnership law. If the entity theory is to be applied for the purpose of imposing criminal penalties on partnership assets, where the partners are wholly innocent of any wrongful act, it should be done only on the unequivocal command of Congress, as is the case under the Motor Carrier Act. UNIVERSAL TRADES, INC., v. PENNSYLVANIA. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, MIDDLE DISTRICT. No. 434. Decided December 8, 1958. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Reported below: 392 Pa. 323, 141 A. 2d 204. Manuel Kraus and Roy J. Keefer for appellant. Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Edward Friedman, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. CILETTI ET AL. v. CITY OF WASHINGTON Et al. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT. No. 418. Decided December 8, 1958. Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Anthony L. Marino, Eugene C. Sloan, Wilbur F. Galbraith and Miles Warner for appellants. Elder W. Marshall, Ernest R. von Starck, J. Wesley Oler and Meyer Goldfarb for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. SANDERS v. TEXAS. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. No. 214, Misc. Decided December 8, 1958. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Reported below: 165 Tex. Cr. R. PER CURIAM. 312 S. W. 2d 640. The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 358 U.S. December 8, 1958. ULLNER v. OHIO. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 426. Decided December 8, 1958. Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Robert P. Goldman for appellant. Morton B. Icove filed a brief for the Ohio Civil Liberties Union et al., as amici curiae, in support of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER and MR. JUSTICE STEWART took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. VAN NEWKIRK v. MCNEILL, SUPERINTENDENT, MATTEAWAN STATE HOSPITAL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 258, Misc. Decided December 8, 1958. Appeal dismissed. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Per Curiam. KIDD ET AL. v. OHIO. 358 U.S. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 465. Decided December 8, 1958. Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Allen Brown for appellants. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER and MR. JUSTICE STEWART took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. LOEBER v. CALIFORNIA. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 260, Misc. Decided December 8, 1958. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Reported below: 158 Cal. App. 2d 730, 323 P. 2d 136. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. |