United States v. Lot 29, Block 16, Highland Place, City of Omaha, Neb.
Decision Date | 07 March 1924 |
Docket Number | 573. |
Citation | 296 F. 729 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. LOT 29, BLOCK 16, HIGHLAND PLACE, CITY OF OMAHA, NEB., et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
E. D O'Sullivan (of Jamieson, O'Sullivan & Southard), of Omaha, Neb., and Geo. N. Mecham (of Rosewater & Mecham), of Omaha, Neb., for defendants.
James C. Kinsler, U.S. Atty., and George A. Keyser, Asst. U.S Atty., both of Omaha, Neb.
The United States brings this action in equity to abate a liquor nuisance and for injunction and other relief, as provided under title 2, section 22, of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 10138 1/2k). The allegations of the petition are simply in the language of the statute, to the effect that the defendants William Maier and Mary Maier as tenants of the defendant Mary Maier, are occupying and using the property involved as a place where intoxicating liquor is sold and kept for sale, and that the place and furniture therein are a public and common nuisance, for the reason that intoxicating liquor is there unlawfully kept for sale and sold, and there is a prayer for both temporary and permanent injunction against the alleged nuisance and the individual for the abatement of the nuisance, and for what is sometimes called a 'padlock' order, to prevent use or occupancy of the place for the period of a year and other relief.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for want of equity jurisdiction, and, in order to present the case more fully to the court, certain stipulations of fact were entered into at the hearing of the motion to dismiss, and certain statements of fact were made by the district attorney, and the facts so stipulated and stated are considered as though they were incorporated in the petition. From the facts so presented to the court in the petition itself, the stipulations, and the statements made, it appears that the property in question, although standing on the record as belonging to Mary Maier, is the homestead of the defendants, who are husband and wife, and who, appearing personally in the court, are persons past middle age, still occupying the home, from which their children have departed to set up homes for themselves. It appears that the defendant William Maier has, since the Prohibition Act went into effect, made and has unlawfully sold some wine, which was intoxicating liquor containing more than the prescribed percentage of alcohol by volume. It is also shown that upon the proof to that effect before the United States commissioner a search warrant was issued, and prohibition agents entered the home, removed the liquor, and arrested both the husband and wife. Information was duly filed against both husband and wife, but there was not sufficient evidence against the wife, who was accordingly dismissed out of the criminal action. The husband pleaded guilty to the criminal charge and sentence was imposed upon him.
At the same time there were a number of cases in a similar situation, so that the mechanical and stenographic work in the district attorney's office caused some time to be consumed before the present petition was filed; that is to say, some few days intervened between the arrest and the criminal proceedings before the present petition was presented to the court and a temporary restraining order issued thereon. It is admitted that, after the prohibition agents made the search, confiscation, and arrest, and up to the time of the hearing, there is no competent evidence of any other infraction of the Prohibition Law by the defendants, or either of them, or of any threat on the part of defendants to repeat any violation of the liquor law.
It is presented in the motion to dismiss that the court is without jurisdiction or power to proceed further in the matter for want of equity jurisdiction. Since the enactment of the National Prohibition Law very few serious contentions have been urged at the bar of this court against the exercise by the court of the equity and injunction powers conferred by the terms of the Prohibition Law, and this has been so largely because owners of property generally have co-operated with enforcement agents and prosecuting officers to suppress the liquor traffic on premises owned by them, and such owners of property have themselves favored and assisted in the eviction of lawless tenants, and have in many instances been willing that use of the property should be discontinued until guilty tenants are gotten rid of and other tenants secured, who could be reasonably expected to make lawful use of the premises. Many property owners have indicated that it was against their own interests that their properties should be used by lawless persons and for unlawful purposes.
But in this case an earnest attack is made upon the power of the court to grant any equity or injunctional relief whatever, and it is contended that the particular provisions of the Prohibition Act on which the government must rely are unconstitutional. It is urged that in the absence of an express statute the case here presented would not justify any relief in a court of equity, and that the statute attempting to confer such power upon the court of equity is unconstitutional. More particularly, the defendants contend that there is simply presented a case where a crime has been committed in the past, and the guilty party has been punished for his crime. In so far as his crime was of a continuing character, and so might be called a nuisance, the nuisance has been abated by the lawful seizure of the liquor and appliances, so that there is not at present any nuisance to be abated, or any threatened wrong to be enjoined against, or any ground of equity jurisdiction.
In the absence of a statute it would hardly be claimed that an equity court would have any power to issue an injunctional order, or indeed any kind of an order, in such a case as this. It seems to be an elemental principle that a court of equity should only abate such nuisances as are existing, or enjoin such as are shown to be actually threatened; but as to wrongs that are past and done the remedies would appear to be at law and not in equity. Counsel for the government do not seriously question this general limitation upon the power of equity courts, but in this case they stand squarely and have drawn their petition solely upon title 2, sections 22 and 23, of the National Prohibition Act, which provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tucker v. State ex rel. Snow
...of the bill are in the alternative and fatally defective; 33 C. J. 697; U.S. v. Cohen, 268 F. 420; U.S. v. Butler, 278 F. 677; U.S. v. Lot 29, Block 16, 296 F. 729. The bill is predicated under the provisions of Chapter Laws 1921, repealed by provisions of Chapter 117, Laws 1921. The trial ......
-
United States v. Chesebrough Mfg. Co.
...of equity would indeed present constitutional questions of a most extraordinary and serious character. Judge Woodrough, in U. S. v. Lot 29, etc. (D. C.) 296 F. 729. feeling impelled to hold that Congress intended to confer upon an equity court authority to enter decrees purely punitive in c......
-
Lamson Co. v. E. T. Slattery Co.
... ... v. E.T. SLATTERY CO. No. 1831.United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.March 17, ... P. Preble, of New York ... City, for defendant ... MORTON, ... (which hangs vertically), which takes the place of the ... corresponding spring in the ... ...