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.
Max TRABERT et al., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee, 1928 — 26 F.2d 1022 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Max TRABERT et al., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
26 F.2d 1022·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1928
Before BUPPINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
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
Max TRABERT et al., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
June 20, 1928.
No. 3853.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Frederic P. Schoonmaker, Judge.
G. Dixon Shrum and Max V. Schoonmaker, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
John D. Meyer, U. S. Atty., and Joseph Richardson, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Pittsburg, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUPPINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
In the court below Max Trabert was charged under the National Prohibition Law with maintaining a nuisance. On hearing, at which the defendant was represented by counsel, the government produced several witnesses, who proved the premises here involved were fitted up for and used as a hotel, and the sale therein on different days of high-powered beer. No witnesses were called in contradiction. After due consideration had, the court entered a decree holding the defendant was maintaining a nuisance on the premises, and closed for one year the first and second floors thereof, with the exception of the stairway leading to the third and fourth floors. Thereupon this appeal was taken. It simply involves alleged error in the court’s finding of fact.
'An examination of the record not only shows no error, but, on the contrary, the correctness of its finding. Its decree is therefore affirmed.