In the United States v. Humphries and Mock case of 1892, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving counterfeit money. The defendants, Humphries and Mock, were convicted for knowingly having in their possession counterfeit coins with intent to defraud. They appealed their conviction arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove they intended to defraud anyone since they had not actually used or attempted to use the counterfeit coins at any point. The Supreme Court upheld their convictions stating that it is not necessary for someone who possesses counterfeit money with an intention of fraudulently using it, to have made an actual attempt at passing off such currency as genuine before being found guilty under federal law. The court held that mere possession of counterfeited coinage coupled with fraudulent intent constitutes a crime even without proof of an overt act towards committing fraud.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Humphries and Mock, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an indictment with no specific charges was fundamentally unfair. He contended that it violated due process rights by not providing defendants with adequate notice of what they were being accused of, thereby preventing them from preparing an effective defense. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse of power if prosecutors could secure convictions without having to specify any particular criminal act or conduct in their indictments. In his view, this would give too much discretion to judges and juries in determining guilt or innocence based on vague allegations rather than concrete evidence.