Mackie v. Erhardt

Second Circuit

Mackie v. Erhardt

77 F. 610, 23 C.C.A. 351, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2274

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 17, 1896·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the ruling of the trial judge in this case should be affirmed upon the authority of Smith v. Rheinstrom, 13 C. C. A. 261, 65 Fed. 984, decided by the circuit court of appeals for the Sixth circuit. According to that decision, importations quite similar to those in the present case, and containing about the same percentage of alcohol, were properly classified as an “alcoholic compound,” because falling within the meaning of that term by common acceptation. We do not feel justified, upon doubtful considerations of the true meaning of the term, to place a different construction upon it. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the ruling of the trial judge in this case should be affirmed upon the authority of Smith v. Rheinstrom, 13 C. C. A. 261, 65 Fed. 984, decided by the circuit court of appeals for the Sixth circuit. According to that decision, importations quite similar to those in the present case, and containing about the same percentage of alcohol, were properly classified as an “alcoholic compound,” because falling within the meaning of that term by common acceptation. We do not feel justified, upon doubtful considerations of the true meaning of the term, to place a different construction upon it. The judgment is affirmed.

Mackie v. Erhardt, 77 F. 610, 23 C.C.A. 351, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2274 (2d Cir. 1896).

Pincite

77 F. 610 (Mackie v. Erhardt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related