Missouri Drug Co. v. Wyman
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri
On Petition for Injunction. On November S, 1903, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Post-Office Department at Washington, D. C., notified the Missouri Drug Company, doing business in the city of St. Louis, Mo., that charges had been lodged with the Postmaster General against the drug company to the effect that it was engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money through the mails by means of false and fraudulent representations or promises, in…
Read the full summary
On Petition for Injunction. On November S, 1903, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Post-Office Department at Washington, D. C., notified the Missouri Drug Company, doing business in the city of St. Louis, Mo., that charges had been lodged with the Postmaster General against the drug company to the effect that it was engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money through the mails by means of false and fraudulent representations or promises, in violation of sections 3929 and 4041 of the Revised Statutes of the United States [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2686, 2749]; that…
1Opinion of the CourtThayer, Circuit Judge
Regarding the proposition which was advanced on the hearing that the statutes under which the Postmaster General assumed to act in issuing the fraud order, to wit, sections 3929 and 4041 of the Revised Statutes [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2686, 2749], and section 4 of chapter 191 of the act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stat. 964 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2688]), are unconstitutional, it is sufficient to say that the court adheres to the views which it expressed on that point in the case entitled American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty (C. C.) 102 Fed. 565, and to the views previously…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnultySupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING v. McANNULTYSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Burfenning v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- United States v. Winona & St. P. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Gardner v. BonestellSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Harris v. RosenbergerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Farley v. HeiningerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- People's United States Bank v. GilsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1905
- Lewis Pub. Co. v. WymanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1907
- People's United States Bank v. GilsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.