Stratford v. City Council of Montgomery
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thomas M. ArbiNgton. The appellant, J. C. Stratford, Jr., was arrested on a warrant issued upon an affidavit, charging him with the offense of carrying on a business without first having obtained a license as required by law, and in violation of section 411 of the City Code of Montgomery. Upon the trial before the recorder of the city of Montgomery, the defendant was found guilty and fined fifty dollars.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thomas M. ArbiNgton. The appellant, J. C. Stratford, Jr., was arrested on a warrant issued upon an affidavit, charging him with the offense of carrying on a business without first having obtained a license as required by law, and in violation of section 411 of the City Code of Montgomery. Upon the trial before the recorder of the city of Montgomery, the defendant was found guilty and fined fifty dollars. Thereupon he took an appeal to the city court of Montgomery. In that court the City Council of Montgomery filed a complaint,…
1Opinion of the CourtBrickell, C. J.
The first question presented by the record, is whether the defendant was a “local commercial broker,” within the meaning of the ordinance under which he was convicted. A “broker” is defined as “an agent employed to make bargains and contracts between other persons in matters of trade, commerce or navigation for a compensation commonly called brokerage.” — Story on Agency, -(8th ed.)', § 28.- Every broker is, in a sense, an agent, but every agent is not a broker. -There are, however, so many incidents common to both relations, that it is difficult to define the precise line of demarkation. We…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brown v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Welton v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Leloup v. Port of MobileSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Brennan v. TitusvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Semo Aviation, Inc. v. Southeastern Airways Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1978
- Ford Motor Co. v. Hall Auto Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Loudonville Milling Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
- Ewart Lumber Co. v. American Cement Plaster Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1913
- City of Birmingham v. Sansing Sales of Birmingham, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1989
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.