Roettcher v. Hamilton

Sixth Circuit

Roettcher v. Hamilton

281 F. 1022, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2216

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 1922

DocketNo. 3652

StatusPublished

This text of 281 F. 1022 (Roettcher v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roettcher v. Hamilton, 281 F. 1022, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2216 (6th Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Since the hearing of this case by the court below, the Supreme Court has disposed of the substantial questions involved, by its opinion in Lipke v. Lederer, 258 U. S.-, 42 Sup. Ct. 549, 66 L. Ed.-, filed June 5, 1922. Upon the authority of that case it must be held that the substantial assessments made by the collector, under section 35 of title 2 of the National [1023]*1023Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 317), were really penalties, and that a suit to enjoin distress and sale for their collection is not forbidden by R. S. § 3244 (Comp. St. § 5971), nor by the existence of any adequate remedy at law. Accordingly the decree herein will be reversed, and the record remanded for further proceedings in accordance with that opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Since the hearing of this case by the court below, the Supreme Court has disposed of the substantial questions involved, by its opinion in Lipke v. Lederer, 258 U. S.-, 42 Sup. Ct. 549, 66 L. Ed.-, filed June 5, 1922. Upon the authority of that case it must be held that the substantial assessments made by the collector, under section 35 of title 2 of the National [1023]*1023Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 317), were really penalties, and that a suit to enjoin distress and sale for their collection is not forbidden by R. S. § 3244 (Comp. St. § 5971), nor by the existence of any adequate remedy at law. Accordingly the decree herein will be reversed, and the record remanded for further proceedings in accordance with that opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 F. 1022, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roettcher-v-hamilton-ca6-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack