United States v. Stafoff Brooks v. United States United States v. Remus 403, Nos. 26

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHOLMES
Citation67 L.Ed. 358,260 U.S. 477,43 S.Ct. 197
PartiesUNITED STATES v. STAFOFF. BROOKS v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. REMUS et al. , and 403
Decision Date02 January 1923
Docket NumberNos. 26,197

260 U.S. 477
43 S.Ct. 197
67 L.Ed. 358
UNITED STATES

v.

STAFOFF. BROOKS v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. REMUS et al.

Nos. 26, 197, and 403.
Argued Nov. 29, 1922.
Decided Jan. 2, 1923.

Chris Elioff Stafoff, alias Chris Elioff, was indicted with another for having in possession a still intended for the production of distilled spirits for beverage and commercial purposes, without having registered it, and for having unlawfully manufactured on premises other than an authorized distillery a mash fit for the production of distilled spirits. A demurrer to both counts was sustained (268 Fed. 417), and the United States brings error. Affirmed.

James L. Brooks was convicted of having in possession a still, and of manufacturing a mash, and of having carried on the business of a distiller without having given th bond required by law, and he brought error to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which certified to the Supreme Court questions as to whether the statutes on which the indictment was based had been repealed by the National Prohibition Act, and as to whether defendant could be sentenced under the National Prohibition Act. Questions as to the repeal answered 'Yes,' and question as to the sentence answered 'No.'

George Remus and others were indicted for having carried on the business of a liquor dealer and rectifier without having paid the special tax required by law. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained as to six of the seven counts of the indictment (283 Fed. 685), and the United States brings error. Judgment on counts 2, 4, and 6 affirmed, and that on counts 3, 5, and 7 reversed.

Page 478

Mrs. Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt, for the United states.

Samuel Herrick, of Washington, D. C., for Brooks.

E. N. Zoline, of New York City, for Remus and others.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the first of these cases Stafoff was indicted with another for having had in their possession a still intended for the production of distilled spirits for beverage and commercial purposes, without having registered it with the Collector of Internal Revenue, as required by Rev. St. § 3258 (Comp. St. § 5994), and in a second count for having unlawfully manufactured on premises other than an authorized distillery a mash fit for the production of distilled spirits, to wit, whisky, contrary to Rev. St. § 3282 (Comp. St. § 6022). A demurrer to these counts was sustained (268 Fed. 417), and the United States brings the case here under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246 (Comp. St. § 1704).

The case of Brooks comes here on a certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Brooks was convicted under the above mentioned sections 3258 and 3282, and also under Rev. St. § 3281 (Comp. St. § 6021), for having

Page 479

carried on the business of a distiller without having given bond as required by law. The third and fourth counts under section 3282 respectively charged the making of a mash as above and the separating by distillation of alcoholic spirits from a fermented mash. The questions certified are whether the three sections mentioned are repealed by the National Prohibition Act of October 28, 1919, c. 85, 41 Stat. 305, and whether if they are repealed the cause should be remanded with directions to enter judgment and impose sentence under the last-named act.

In the third case Remus and his associates were charged in six counts with having carried on the business of a wholesale liquor dealer, that of a retail...

To continue reading

Request your trial
138 practice notes
  • Al Bahlul v. United States, No. 11–1324.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 14, 2014
    ...37not make law.” Postmaster–General v. Early, 25 U.S. 136, 148, 12 Wheat. 136, 6 L.Ed. 577 (1827) ; see also United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 67 L.Ed. 358 (1923) (Holmes, J). Determining what offenses were “ traditionally” tried by military commissions according to......
  • Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul v. United States, No. 11–1324.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 14, 2014
    ...37] not make law.” Postmaster–General v. Early, 25 U.S. 136, 148, 12 Wheat. 136, 6 L.Ed. 577 (1827); see also United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 67 L.Ed. 358 (1923) (Holmes, J). Determining what offenses were “traditionally” tried by military commissions according to......
  • In re Jones, No. 30232-2-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 23, 2004
    ...80 S.Ct. 326, 4 L.Ed.2d 334 (1960); Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473, 479-80, 60 S.Ct. 355, 84 L.Ed. 406 (1940); United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 67 L.Ed. 358 (1923); cf. South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 378, n. 17, 104 S.Ct. 1107, 79 L.Ed.2d 372 (1984); Consum......
  • Matter of Extradition of Lang, No. CV 95-5468 ER.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • November 20, 1995
    ...an ex post facto law is one that imposes punishment for an act not punishable at the time it was committed); United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 199, 67 L.Ed. 358 (1923) (holding that Congress may not give retrospective criminality to acts done before passage of const......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
138 cases
  • Al Bahlul v. United States, No. 11–1324.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 14, 2014
    ...37not make law.” Postmaster–General v. Early, 25 U.S. 136, 148, 12 Wheat. 136, 6 L.Ed. 577 (1827) ; see also United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 67 L.Ed. 358 (1923) (Holmes, J). Determining what offenses were “ traditionally” tried by military commissions according to......
  • Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul v. United States, No. 11–1324.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 14, 2014
    ...37] not make law.” Postmaster–General v. Early, 25 U.S. 136, 148, 12 Wheat. 136, 6 L.Ed. 577 (1827); see also United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 67 L.Ed. 358 (1923) (Holmes, J). Determining what offenses were “traditionally” tried by military commissions according to......
  • In re Jones, No. 30232-2-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 23, 2004
    ...80 S.Ct. 326, 4 L.Ed.2d 334 (1960); Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473, 479-80, 60 S.Ct. 355, 84 L.Ed. 406 (1940); United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 67 L.Ed. 358 (1923); cf. South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 378, n. 17, 104 S.Ct. 1107, 79 L.Ed.2d 372 (1984); Consum......
  • Matter of Extradition of Lang, No. CV 95-5468 ER.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • November 20, 1995
    ...an ex post facto law is one that imposes punishment for an act not punishable at the time it was committed); United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 199, 67 L.Ed. 358 (1923) (holding that Congress may not give retrospective criminality to acts done before passage of const......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT