Murphy v. United States, 443

• Decision Date: 06 December 1926
• Docket Number: No. 443,443
• Citation: 272 U.S. 630,71 L.Ed. 446,47 S.Ct. 218
• Parties: MURPHY et al. v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

272 U.S. 630

47 S.Ct. 218

71 L.Ed. 446

MURPHY et al.

v UNITED STATES.

No. 443.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 24, 1926.

Decided Dec. 6, 1926.

The Attorney General and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.

Messrs. Thomas Murphy and Vincent Murphy, pro se.

Mr. Justice HOLMESdelivered the opinion of the Court.

Thomas Murphy and Vincent Murphy were tried for maintaining a nuisance in violation of section 21,tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act(ActOct. 28, 1919, c. 85;41 Stat. 305, 314 (Comp. St. § 10138 1/2 jj)) and were acquitted.Subsequently the United States brought a suit in equity to abate the same alleged nuisance under section 22 of the same title.At the trial the defendants proved their former acquittal and moved that the bill be dismissed.The District Court denied the motion and entered a decree abating the nuisance and enjoining the defendants from occupying or using the premises for one year.The defendants appealed.The Circuit Court of Appeals certified to this court the question whether the former acquittal is a bar.

By section 21 any room, house, or place where intoxicating liquor is manufactured, sold, or kept in violation of the statute is declared to be a common nuisance, and maintaining it is made a misdemeanor punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.Then follows the section under which the defendants now are sued, authorizing a suit in equity for an injunction against the nuisance as defined.A temporary writ restraining the continuance of it until the conclusion of the trial is to be issued if it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the court of judge in vacation that such nuisance exists.It is not necessary for the court to find that the property was being unlawfully used at the time of the hearing, but on finding that the material allegations of the petition are true, the court'shall order' that no liquors shall be manufactured, sold, or stored, etc., in the place; and upon judgment that the nuisance be abated, 'may order' that the place shall not be occupied or used for one year thereafter, but may permit it to be occupied if the owner or occupant gives a bond for not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, that intoxicating liquor will not thereafter be manufactured, sold, or kept, etc., therein, etc.

The appellants say that an additional penalty is imposed by tit. 2, section 22(Comp. St. § 10138 1/2 k), and that after they have been acquitted of the crime they cannot be punished for it in a second proceeding.Coffey v. United States, 116 U. S. 430, 6 S. Ct. 432, 29 L. Ed. 681.But although the contention is plausible it seems to us unsound.It is true, especially if the premises are closed for a year, that a pecuniary detriment is inflicted, but that is true of a tax, and sometimes it is hard to say how a given detriment imposed by the law shall be regarded.Hodge v. Muscatine County, 196 U. S. 276, 279, 280, 25 S. Ct. 237, 49 L. Ed. 477;St. Louis Compress Co. v. Arkansas, 260 U. S. 346, 348, 43 S. Ct. 125, 67 L. Ed. 297;The Creole, Fed. Cas. No. 13,033, 2 Wall. Jr. 485.The mere fact that it is imposed in consequence of a crime is not conclusive.A government may endeavor to prevent certain facts and yet provide that...