Mouse v. Higgins

273 F. 832, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1307
District Court, D. New Hampshire·Decided May 24, 1921·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

ALDRICH, District Judge.

There were earlier petitions in these cases, which were denied April 18, 1921.

The present petitions bring out more clearly than the former ones the relations which prohibition agents sustain to the revenue features of the National Prohibition Act, 41 Stat. 305.

[833] Section 28 of the Prohibition Act seems to contemplate federal protection to officers acting under its authority.

Judge Wolverton of the Oregon district, in a recent case in an elaborate opinion (State of Oregon v. Wood, 268 Fed. 975) holds that cases against officers appointed under the federal law in question are removable from state to federal courts under the provision of the act for the protection of revenue, officers.

It seems rather unfortunate that authority to do this must, in a large degree, at least, be rested upon the ancient acts for the protection of revenue officers — acts which, primarily had reference to the protection of officers who were distinctively revenue officers. Yet 1 am disposed to follow the reasoning of Judge Wolverton.

Certiorari to issue in both cases.

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

Mouse v. Higgins, 273 F. 832, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1307 (D.N.H. 1921).

273 F. 832 (Mouse v. Higgins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Texas v. Heaton
58 F.2d 656 (N.D. Texas, 1932)
United States v. McConnell
10 F.2d 973 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1926)
Wolkin v. Gibney
3 F.2d 960 (S.D. New York, 1925)
United States ex rel. Asher v. Pennsylvania
293 F. 931 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1923)
Massachusetts v. Bogan
285 F. 668 (D. Massachusetts, 1923)
Smith v. Gilliam
282 F. 628 (W.D. Kentucky, 1922)