Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Bernstein v. Doran

Bernstein v. Doran, 33 F.2d 897 (3d Cir. 1929)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1929-07-16
Topic
general

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge. After two hearings and an opportunity to the appellant to produce testimony, the Prohibition Commissioner refused to grant a permit to Lewis Bernstein. Thereupon a bill was filed in the court below to reverse his order. We feel the ease presented questions touching the applicant’s- experience in the business proposed, alleged false statements on his part concerning his residence and experience, the employment of a chemist who had been connected with a company that had its permit revoked, conflicting statements concerning the money invested in the business and the source from which it was obtained, and the questionable character of customers with whom applicant stated he meant to deal. These were all questions within the sphere of proper inquiry on the part of the appellee.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bernstein v. Doran. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
BERNSTEIN v. DORAN,33 F.2d 897(3rd Cir. 1929)
BERNSTEIN v. DORAN, United States Prohibition Commissioner, et al.
No. 4082.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
July 16, 1929.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey; Joseph L. Bodine, Judge.

Application by Lewis Bernstein trading as the Esters Manufacturing Company, to review a ruling of James M. Doran, United States Prohibition Commissioner, refusing a permit for the withdrawal of specially denatured alcohol to be used in the manufacture of benzoin lotion and tincture of iodine, opposed by the Prohibition Commissioner and A.J. Hanlon, Federal Prohibition Administrator for the State of New Jersey. The ruling of the Commissioner was upheld by the District Court, and applicant appeals. Decree of District Court affirmed.
Abraham Wernick, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Philip Forman, U.S. Atty., of Trenton, N.J. (by John Grimshaw, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., of Paterson, N.J.), for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
After two hearings and an opportunity to the appellant to produce testimony, the Prohibition Commissioner refused to grant a permit to Lewis Bernstein. Thereupon a bill was filed in the court below to reverse his order. We feel the case presented questions touching the applicant's experience in the business proposed, alleged false statements on his part concerning his residence and experience, the employment of a chemist who had been connected with a company that had its permit revoked, conflicting statements concerning the money invested in the business and the source from which it was obtained, and the questionable character of customers with whom applicant stated he meant to deal. These were all questions within the sphere of proper inquiry on the part of the appellee. While the testimony was pro and con, there was testimony from which he could make the order he did.

On hearing, the court below approved his action, holding that the facts testified to before the examiner bore out the conclusions reached. Finding no error in the action of the appellee or of the court below, the decree of the latter is affirmed.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge, sat in this case, but took no part in its decision.