Rood v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ROSE, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff in error was defendant below and will be so styled here. He was indicted and convicted of carrying on the business of a retail liquor dealer without having paid the special tax therefor, in violation of section 3242 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 5965).
For almost 60 years, no one has been allowed to engage in the business of a retail liquor dealer without paying the tax levied upon that occupation. Since the passage of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138% et seq.), every one has been forbidden to sell intoxicants. Both…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bailey v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
- United States v. RenneckeDistrict Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1886
3Cited by5 opinions
- Heath v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1948
- Anderson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1929
- Allen Glynn Peeples v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
- United States v. 673 Cases of Distilled Spirits & WinesDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1947
- Jordan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1925