Grosfield v. United States
Headline: Court affirms closing of building used to manufacture illegal alcohol, holding owners liable for failing to remove tenant and allowing courts to shut such properties to prevent repeat offenses.
Holding: The Court affirmed the district court’s decree closing premises used to manufacture illegal liquor, finding owners who knew of the tenant’s illegal use and delayed eviction could be barred from using the property.
- Allows courts to close properties used to make or sell illegal alcohol for a year.
- Pushes property owners to promptly remove illegal-activity tenants or face closure.
- District courts can permit use if owners post $500–$1,000 bond and give assurances.
Summary
Background
A federal suit was filed March 11, 1925 against two property owners and their tenant in the Eastern District of Michigan after a January 17, 1925 police raid. Officers found two 300‑gallon copper stills, two copper tanks, about 8,500 gallons of sugar mash, and 60 gallons of whiskey distillate at the rented premises. The owners said they had rented the space for storage and claimed no knowledge at first, but the tenant remained in possession and the court later entered a decree against the owners on July 10, 1925.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether the evidence justified closing the premises as a common nuisance under the National Prohibition Act. That law allows the United States to seek a court order to stop illegal manufacture or sale of liquor and permits courts to bar occupancy for one year or to allow use if an owner posts a bond of $500 to $1,000. The Court emphasized the statute is preventive, not punitive, and found the owners had notice of the raid from a newspaper and talks with the tenant yet delayed evicting him. Given the owners’ delay and the trial judge’s credibility findings, the Court held the closure was supported to prevent a recurrence.
Real world impact
The ruling means courts can close buildings used to make or sell illegal liquor when evidence shows a real risk of repetition, and owners who fail to act promptly may lose the right to immediate use. Property owners should remove or monitor unlawful tenants quickly or face court-ordered closures. The district court may still permit use if owners post the statutory bond and provide satisfactory assurances. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decree.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?