Elliott v. City of Louisville
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 44 — WRIT OP PROHIBITION 1. The' ordinance in question is retrospective as to- the appellant, and if enforced against him, would unlawfully deprive and divest him of a franchise and right vested in him by the laws of Kentucky, and possessed and enjoyed by him before, up to, and at the time the ordinance was attempted to be passed, and is, therefore, as to him, unconstitutional, inoperative, and void. 2 Sharwood’s Blackstone’s Com., 37; 3 Kent’s Com., 458; Commonwealth…
Read the full summary
Case 44 — WRIT OP PROHIBITION 1. The' ordinance in question is retrospective as to- the appellant, and if enforced against him, would unlawfully deprive and divest him of a franchise and right vested in him by the laws of Kentucky, and possessed and enjoyed by him before, up to, and at the time the ordinance was attempted to be passed, and is, therefore, as to him, unconstitutional, inoperative, and void. 2 Sharwood’s Blackstone’s Com., 37; 3 Kent’s Com., 458; Commonwealth v. Frankfort, 13 Bush, 189; Ky. Constitution of 1799, Art. 3, sec. 26; Commonwealth v. Rice, 18 B. M., 485; Morehead &…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE Du RELLE
delivered ti-ie opinion of the court.
The appellant, wbo for some fifty years has been a practicing attorney in the courts of this Commonwealth, was summoned before the Police Court of the city of Louisville to show cause why he should not be fined for unlawfully engaging in the practice of his profession as a business for fee and reward in said city without having a license so to do. The proceeding was instituted under an ordinance concerning certain licenses in the city of Louisville, approved April 11, 1894, by which a license of $10 was requir*265ed to be paid into tbe Sinking…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Levi v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1895
3Cited by2 opinions
- Raydure v. Board of SupervisorsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
- Newlin v. StuartCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1938