De Milo Perfume Co. v. Campbell
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
THACHER, District Judge.
The . charges upon which plaintiff’s permit to use specially denatured alcohol in the manufacture of perfumes was revoked were amply sustained by the evidence. It is, however, contended that the Commissioner of Prohibition was without power to revoke the permit. By virtue of the Act of March 3, 1927, c. 348, 44 Stat. L. 1381 (5 USCA §§ 281-28le), and the executive order of the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, promulgated April 1, 1927, the powers formerly exercised by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, pursuant to section 13 of title 3 of the National Prohibition…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Higgins v. FosterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Remick Products, Inc. v. MillsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- Milillo v. CanfieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926