U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1928

Hardwig v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided February 9, 1928 · Denison, Moorman, Tuttle

23 F.2d 922; 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3274 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Henry A. Pollack, of Cleveland, Ohio (Mooney, McCormack, Roth So Pollack, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for plaintiff in error., John B. Osmun, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Halpern 2012, LLC v. Centerline, City of (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2019)
Hidden Village, LLC v. City of Lakewood (District Court, N.D. Ohio 2012)
Ali Shamaeizadeh v. Joel Cunigan (6th Cir. 2003)
Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan (6th Cir. 2003)
United States v. Elisha Combs (6th Cir. 1971)
People v. Rosehthal (Poughkeepsie City Court 1969)
Wyman Hulan Parr v. United States (5th Cir. 1958)
United States v. Nagle (District Court, N.D. New York 1929)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record presents two questions. The first is whether a still, with supplies, equipment, and about 30 gallons of whisky, found by a searching party of federal officers, was admissible in evidence against plaintiff in error, Hardwig. Hardwig was lessee of his dwelling, but had sublet the second floor of it to an Italian. All of the evidence objected to was found in that part of the building' occupied by the Italian.

Hardwig had no right to object to evidence of what was found or done there. Newingham v. United States (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 490; Remus v. United States (C. C. A.) 291 F. 501; Van Dam v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 23 F.(2d) 235, decided January 6, 1928. Nor did he have any such right because of the circumstances under which the officers, reached that part of the building, for it was not shown that they passed through any part of the building occupied or used by him, and, besides, the right of ingress to and egress from the upstairs was an incident to the sublease, and only the sublessee could rely upon the Fourth Amendment to complain of tany illegal or improper use of this right.

The other question, relating' to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction on the fourth count, charging the maintenance of a nuisance, is controlled, we think, by Schutte v. United States (C. C. A.) 21 F.(2d) 830.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.