Richards v. Geiger
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on appeal by intervenors from an order of tbe .Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting as a Probate Court, refusing the prayer of their intervening petition for the vacation of an order authorizing and directing the continuance .of a retail liquor business.
Read the full summary
Hearing on appeal by intervenors from an order of tbe .Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting as a Probate Court, refusing the prayer of their intervening petition for the vacation of an order authorizing and directing the continuance .of a retail liquor business. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This is an appeal from an order of the supreme court of the District, sitting as a probate court, refusing the prayer of the intervening petition of the complainants, William P. Richards, Matthew Trimble, Samuel T. Kalbfus, and Alexander McKenzie, constituting the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Robb
The appellees have filed a motion for the dismissal of this-appeal upon the ground that the excise board is not the proper party to intervene. The act of March 3, 1893 (27 Stat. at L. 563, chap. 204), “regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors in the District of Columbia,” is very comprehensive in character. Its first section prohibits the sale, or keeping for sale, of intoxicating liquors, except as provided in the act. By the second section an excise board, consisting of the three commissioners of the District, is constituted. It is made the duty of this board to pass upon all…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Crowley v. ChristensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- In re Estate of GrimmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Gilday v. WarrenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- United States v. OvertonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1812
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rowe v. ColpoysCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943