Higgins v. Foster
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The bill was to restrain the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the Federal Prohibition Administrator of New York from revoking, or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff in the use of, a permit to manufacture denatured alcohol.
Read the full summary
The bill was to restrain the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the Federal Prohibition Administrator of New York from revoking, or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff in the use of, a permit to manufacture denatured alcohol. The facts were that the plaintiff'was the owner and manager of a denaturing plant in the city of New York for which on October 21, 1924, he obtained a permit which, in accordance with the regulations at that time existing, was to continue “from the date hereof until surrendered by the holder or canceled by the Commissioner of…
1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). That the evidence disclosed upon the trial was amply sufficient to justify a revocation of the permit under section 9, title 2, we have no doubt; but, if Higgins was entitled to a hearing as prescribed by that section, the action of the defendants was irregular, and cannot stand. In what we say we therefore do not wish to be understood as in any sense indicating that the result, except for this irregularity, was not in accordance with law.
We think that section 6 of title 2 has no relation to denatured alcohol, and that there is therefore no statutory…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Lion Laboratories, Inc. v. CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
- Helvering v. Druggists' Specialties Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1935
- Chicago Grain Products Co. v. MellonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1926
- United States v. BornnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- Casper v. DoranDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1929
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.