Opinion

Mouse v. Higgins

  • 273 F. 832
  • 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1307
Court
District Court, D. New Hampshire
Filed
May 24, 1921
Status
Published
Author
Aldrich
On the bench
Aldrich
Cited by
6 cases
Authority
More cited than 78.9%

The 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.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.