Elsinore Perfume Co. v. Campbell
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtChase, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The trial court was lim ited to a review of the proceedings before the Commissioner. National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 9 (27 USCA § 21). Unless error in law was found, or the action of the Commissioner was wholly unsupported by the evidence, or arbitrary or capricious, the revocation should not have been disturbed. Qualtop Beverages, Inc., v. Campbell, 31 F.(2d) 266.
*236While the evidence of unlawful diversion of the alcohol was entirely circumstantial, it was sufficient to support the decision revoking the permit, as it tended to show that permittee had not…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ma-King Products Co. v. BlairSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Higgins v. FosterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Selzman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Remick Products, Inc. v. MillsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- Fox v. MillsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Driscoll v. CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
- Kernan v. CampbellDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1929
- Goldman v. CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930