Bradley v. Wynne

Third Circuit

Bradley v. Wynne

61 F.2d 200, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 4226

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedAugust 23, 1932

DocketNo. 4878

StatusPublished

This text of 61 F.2d 200 (Bradley v. Wynne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley v. Wynne, 61 F.2d 200, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 4226 (3d Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 F.2d 200, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 4226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-wynne-ca3-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack