Solax Drug Co. v. Doran

Third Circuit

Solax Drug Co. v. Doran

27 F.2d 522, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3430

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 1928

DocketNo. 3797

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 27 F.2d 522 (Solax Drug Co. v. Doran) 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

Solax Drug Co. v. Doran, 27 F.2d 522, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3430 (3d Cir. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This ease brings for review the dismissal by the court below of a bill in equity, brought to reverse the action of the Prohibition Commissioner, who disapproved the application -of the Solax Drug Company, Inc., a permit holder, for an increase from 3,500 to 8,500 gallons per month. After such refusal by the Commissioner, a hearing was had, wherein proofs were taken, and the Commissioner’s action was approved. The alleged errors center around questions of fact, which were summarized in the opinion of the court below, viz.:

“It is, of course, obvious that, where a permittee’s entire product is and always has been sold to a single purchaser, whom the permittee, describes as its selling agent, the situation is open to the suspicion that the permittee is simply selling to itself and using the fiction of a demand from its customer as a basis for attempting to increase its permitted withdrawals. This was the construction which the Commissioner placed upon the situation presented to him by this application.

“It is not unreasonable, where the circumstances are such as disclosed by this record, for the Commissioner to require the applicant to present full information as to the person with whom he is doing and proposes to continue to do business as his sole customer, and to require him to explicitly define the exact nature of the connection between him and his customer. The evidence actually presented to the Commissioner in this case upon these points is unsatisfactory.”

Finding no error on the part of the court below, its decree of dismissal is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This ease brings for review the dismissal by the court below of a bill in equity, brought to reverse the action of the Prohibition Commissioner, who disapproved the application -of the Solax Drug Company, Inc., a permit holder, for an increase from 3,500 to 8,500 gallons per month. After such refusal by the Commissioner, a hearing was had, wherein proofs were taken, and the Commissioner’s action was approved. The alleged errors center around questions of fact, which were summarized in the opinion of the court below, viz.:

“It is, of course, obvious that, where a permittee’s entire product is and always has been sold to a single purchaser, whom the permittee, describes as its selling agent, the situation is open to the suspicion that the permittee is simply selling to itself and using the fiction of a demand from its customer as a basis for attempting to increase its permitted withdrawals. This was the construction which the Commissioner placed upon the situation presented to him by this application.

“It is not unreasonable, where the circumstances are such as disclosed by this record, for the Commissioner to require the applicant to present full information as to the person with whom he is doing and proposes to continue to do business as his sole customer, and to require him to explicitly define the exact nature of the connection between him and his customer. The evidence actually presented to the Commissioner in this case upon these points is unsatisfactory.”

Finding no error on the part of the court below, its decree of dismissal is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F.2d 522, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solax-drug-co-v-doran-ca3-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack