United States v. Farragut was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment was not signed by the grand jury foreman. The case involved a defendant, Farragut, who was charged with a crime in the District of Columbia. The indictment was not signed by the grand jury foreman, and Farragut argued that this rendered the indictment invalid. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid, despite the fact that it was not signed by the grand jury foreman. The Court reasoned that the grand jury foreman's signature was not necessary for the indictment to be valid, as long as the indictment was properly presented to the grand jury and the grand jury found probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the crime. The Court also noted that the grand jury foreman's signature was not required by any statute or rule of court, and that the grand jury foreman's signature was not necessary to ensure that the indictment was valid. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid, despite the fact that it was not signed by the grand jury foreman. The Court reasoned that the grand jury foreman's signature was not necessary for the indictment to be valid, as long as the indictment was properly presented to the grand jury and the grand jury found probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the crime.

In United States v. Farragut, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a district court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Secretary of War in relation to military pensions. The majority opinion held that such appeals were not within the scope of district courts' jurisdiction and should instead be heard by Congress or other executive branch agencies. Justice Field dissented, arguing that it was well established law at the time that district courts had authority over all cases arising under federal laws unless expressly excluded by statute or otherwise limited by constitutional provisions. He further argued that since no such exclusion existed for this case, then it logically followed that the district court did have jurisdiction and should therefore be allowed to hear appeals on decisions made by executive branch officers like those related to military pensions.