United States ex rel. Soeder v. Crossen
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Mandamus proceeding by the United States, on the relation of Elizabeth A. Soeder, against Leo A. Crossen, Supervising Prohibition Agent. On rule to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue.
1Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON, District Judge.
From the petition and return it appears that the petitioner is the wife of George Soeder; that they occupy as their dwelling the premises No. 200 Walnut street, Philadelphia, which premises are used in part by the husband, George Soeder, as a public house or saloon. Two federal prohibition agents, acting under the direction of the respondent, went to the saloon, and, according to their statements, were served with whisky by the relator’s husband. Upon the third floor in the part of the house used as a private dwelling, the agents seized a large quantity of…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Garske v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1924
- Rose v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1921
- United States v. InnelliDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1923
- Wiese v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1925
- United States v. BatemanDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.