United States v. Glab 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 defendant, Glab, was indicted for a crime but the indictment was not signed by the grand jury foreman. Glab argued that the indictment was invalid and that he should not be convicted of the crime. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid and that Glab could be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the indictment was valid because it was signed by the grand jury clerk, who was authorized to sign indictments on behalf of the grand jury. The Court also noted that the lack of a signature from the grand jury foreman did not invalidate the indictment because the foreman was not required to sign indictments. The Court's decision in United States v. Glab established that an indictment is valid even if it is not signed by the grand jury foreman. The Court's decision also established that the grand jury clerk is authorized to sign indictments on behalf of the grand jury.

In United States v. Glab, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant could be convicted of larceny for stealing goods from a vessel that had been abandoned by its crew and left adrift on the open sea. The majority opinion held that since there was no owner or custodian to protect it, the vessel did not constitute property capable of being stolen under federal law. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that even if there were no owners or custodians present at the time of theft, an individual who takes possession of such property is still liable for larceny because they are depriving someone else's right to possess it in future. He further argued that Congress intended to criminalize all forms of taking without consent when enacting laws against larceny and therefore should be interpreted broadly enough to include vessels which have been abandoned but remain unclaimed by any rightful owner.