United States v. Curtis is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1879. The case involved a dispute between the United States and Curtis, a former employee of the United States Treasury Department. Curtis had been accused of embezzling funds from the Treasury Department and was indicted for the crime. At trial, Curtis argued that the indictment was invalid because it was not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, as required by law. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the indictment was valid, even though it was not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Court reasoned that the indictment was valid because it was issued by a grand jury, which is authorized to issue indictments. The Court also held that the indictment was sufficient to support a conviction, even though it did not specify the amount of money that Curtis had allegedly embezzled. The Court reasoned that the indictment was sufficient because it alleged that Curtis had embezzled funds from the Treasury Department, and that was enough to support a conviction. In the end, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Curtis and held that the indictment was valid and sufficient to support a conviction. This case established the principle that an indictment is valid and sufficient to support a conviction, even if it does not specify the amount of money allegedly embezzled.

In United States v. Curtis, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that allowed for the forfeiture of vessels used in violation of certain customs laws applied to an incident involving two ships on Lake Michigan. The majority opinion held that it did apply and affirmed the lower court's decision granting forfeiture of one ship and dismissing claims against another. In dissent, Justice Field argued that Congress had not intended for this law to be applicable beyond navigable waters subject to admiralty jurisdiction as defined by common law principles, which would exclude lakes such as Lake Michigan from its scope. He further noted that there were other statutes available specifically designed for enforcement within inland bodies of water like Lake Michigan; thus allowing application here would render those statutes superfluous and lead to absurd results if extended too far geographically or conceptually.