Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
James S. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. S. O. WYNNE, Supervisor of Permits, Appellee, 1932 — 61 F.2d 200 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
James S. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. S. O. WYNNE, Supervisor of Permits, Appellee
61 F.2d 200·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
James S. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. S. O. WYNNE, Supervisor of Permits, Ap-pellee.
No. 4878.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Aug. 23, 1932.
John W. Crolly, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Edward W. Wells, U. S. Atty., and Richard H. Woolsey, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
- Before BUFFINGTON, DAYIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In this case James S. Bradley applied for a brewery permit for premises in Mahanoy City. Heretofore an application for such a permit by James S. Bradley, trading as Fraekville Lumber & Supply Company, had been refused, and such action was finally sustained by this court in an opinion reported at 46 F.(2d) 458. After hearing and a thorough investigation of the present application, a permit was refused. Thereupon a bill was filed in this case by Bradley, alleging the refusal by the supervisor was arbitrary and capricious. After hearing, the court below held his refusal was not arbitrary and capricious and dismissed the bill for want of equity. 1 F. Supp. 222.
After hearing thorough argument by counsel for the applicant, after- a careful study of the proofs by each member of this court and a full consideration thereof collectively, all the members of the court are of opinion that neither the commissioner nor the court below was in error.
Accordingly, the decree dismissing the bill for want of eqility is affirmed.