Driscoll v. Campbell
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtSwan, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). It is urged by the appellees that, regardless of the merits, dismissal of the bill should be affirmed because the District .Court was without jurisdiction. The argument is that jurisdiction must be derived, if at all, from the third paragraph of section 6, title 2, of the Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 310 [27 USCA § 16]); that, according to Higgins v. Foster, 12 F.(2d) 646 (C. C. A. 2), the first two paragraphs of that section do not include denatured alcohol, because it is not “liquor” within the statutory definition; and that, since the permits referred to in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ma-King Products Co. v. BlairSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Higgins v. FosterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Doran v. EisenbergCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1929
- Gautieri v. SheldonDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1925
- Milillo v. CanfieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Goldman v. CampbellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Triborough Chemical Corp. v. DoranDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1930
- Herrmann v. DoranDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1931