Velvo Chemical Laboratories, Inc. v. Mellon

E.D. New York

Velvo Chemical Laboratories, Inc. v. Mellon

13 F.2d 1019, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1257

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedJune 8, 1926

DocketNo. 2172

StatusPublished

This text of 13 F.2d 1019 (Velvo Chemical Laboratories, Inc. v. Mellon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Velvo Chemical Laboratories, Inc. v. Mellon, 13 F.2d 1019, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1257 (E.D.N.Y. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This is a suit in equity to have the action of the defendant in revoking the permit of the plaintiff to use specially denatured alcohol in the manufacture of hair tonic and certain toilet articles set aside and to reinstate the permit. No evidence was taken on the trial. It was stipulated that this court should base its decision upon the testimony taken before the Commissioner.

The judicial review of these proceedings is a trial de novo (O’Sullivan v. Potter [D. C.] 290 F. 844; Goldberg v. Yellowley [D. C.] 290 F. 389; Hoell v. Mellon [D. C.] 4 F.[2d] 859), and as such the sufficiency of the citation cannot arise (Goldberg v. Yellowley, supra; Schnitzler v. Yellowley [D. C.] 290 F. 849). But I have concluded that the citation is sufficient. The Commissioner has exercised a judicial discretion and I do not find an abuse thereof. I am fully in accord with the conclusion reached by him.

Judgment is therefore granted to the defendant against the plaintiff, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, with costs.

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

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This is a suit in equity to have the action of the defendant in revoking the permit of the plaintiff to use specially denatured alcohol in the manufacture of hair tonic and certain toilet articles set aside and to reinstate the permit. No evidence was taken on the trial. It was stipulated that this court should base its decision upon the testimony taken before the Commissioner.

The judicial review of these proceedings is a trial de novo (O’Sullivan v. Potter [D. C.] 290 F. 844; Goldberg v. Yellowley [D. C.] 290 F. 389; Hoell v. Mellon [D. C.] 4 F.[2d] 859), and as such the sufficiency of the citation cannot arise (Goldberg v. Yellowley, supra; Schnitzler v. Yellowley [D. C.] 290 F. 849). But I have concluded that the citation is sufficient. The Commissioner has exercised a judicial discretion and I do not find an abuse thereof. I am fully in accord with the conclusion reached by him.

Judgment is therefore granted to the defendant against the plaintiff, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F.2d 1019, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velvo-chemical-laboratories-inc-v-mellon-nyed-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack