Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. Teague, Barnett & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. This action was brought by the Union Metallic Cartridge Company, a foreign corporation, against Teague, Barnett & Co., a mercantile partnership doing business in the city of Montgomery; and was founded on an account for goods sold and delivered, consisting of cartridges, aggregating $882.67. The complaint contained the common counts, and a special count which set out a list of the articles…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. This action was brought by the Union Metallic Cartridge Company, a foreign corporation, against Teague, Barnett & Co., a mercantile partnership doing business in the city of Montgomery; and was founded on an account for goods sold and delivered, consisting of cartridges, aggregating $882.67. The complaint contained the common counts, and a special count which set out a list of the articles sold, with the prices of each. The only plea was the general issue. On the trial, as appears from the bill of exceptions,…
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
The question presented bythe agreed statement of facts, and the rulings of the City Court made upon them, involves the construction of sub-division 17 of section 5 of the Eevenue Law, as amended by the act of December 11, 1886. — Acts 1886-87, p. 36.
This law imposes a license of three hundred dollars on “dealers in pistols, or pistol cartridges, or bowie-knives, or dirk knives, whether [ constituting their] principal stock in trade or not.” The inquiry raised is, what was intended to come within the designation of “pistol cartridges.” The liability of the defendants is admitted to depend on…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wren v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Ryall v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885