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.
LEADING PERFUMERS & CHEMISTS, Inc., v. CAMPBELL, Federal Prohibition Administrator, et al., 1927 — 29 F.2d 949 · caselaw · US
General
LEADING PERFUMERS & CHEMISTS, Inc., v. CAMPBELL, Federal Prohibition Administrator, et al.
29 F.2d 949·United States District Court for the Southern District of New York·1927
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
LEADING PERFUMERS & CHEMISTS, Inc., v. CAMPBELL, Federal Prohibition Administrator, et al.
District Court, S. D. New York.
December 27, 1927.
Lewis Landes, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Charles H. Tuttle, U. S. Atty., of New York City (U. S. Grant, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.
[MAJORITY — KNOX, District Judge.]
KNOX, District Judge.
It is most unfortunate that the delay of this proceeding in the office of the Prohibition Administrator should have occurred. A permittee which is charged with violation of either the Prohibition Law (27 USCA) or tbe regulations promulgated iu relation thereto, and whose permit has been temporarily revoked, should know its status as soon as is reasonably possible. Very often, large sums of money, as well as other matters of importance, are involved, and unnecessary delay in disposing of eases is not only hurtful, but may, if the permittee is unjustly accused, be destructive of a legitimate business.
TJiat, however, is not, in my opinion, a result of the delay that here took place. In other words, the record satisfies me not only that the revocation proceedings were justified, but that the charges made against the permittee are amply supported by the evidence. I shall not undertake to state and weigh the testimony. All of it has been read, and while much of the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances are persuasive. When there is added to them the discrepancies appearing in the per-mittee’s record book, there appears to be slight, if any, doubt as to the propriety of the action of the prohibition authorities in revoking the permit.
As the right to revoke the permit was dependent upon the testimony before the Commissioner or his agent, Remick Products Co. v. Mills (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 477, and as that testimony is before the court, and has been considered, there is no need to retain plaintiff’s complaint for final hearing. It will he dismissed.