State v. Adams
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court; Turner Butler, Judge; 1. Act 99, Acts 1919, is constitutional and 73 Ark. 243 does not apply. 2. It was not repealed by act No. 276, Acts 1919. 45 Ark. 90; 50 Id. 132; 68 Id. 130; 107 Id. 381. Act 99 is repealed by act 276, but, if not, it is unconstitutional. 110 Ark. 204; 117 Id. 54. The $50 paid the State for license and the 16 per cent, exacted by the county cover the same privilege and is double taxation and void.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
It is conceded by counsel on both sides that the issues raised by this appeal are:
First. Whether or not act 99 of the Acts of 1919 regulating the seining of fish other than game fish in certain lakes in Chicot County is constitutional; and,
Second. Whether this act has been repealed by the general game and fish law subsequently passed at the same session of the Legislature.
Act 99 was approved February 20, 1919. See Special Acts of 1919, p. 177.
Section 1 of the act provides that the county judge of Chicot County may issue a license or licenses for the purpose of catching buffalo, gar and cat…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Smith v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- People v. CollisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Lewis v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Martels v. WyssSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bank of Blytheville v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Fugett v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
- Merritt v. GravenmierSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Bohman v. GouldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Roberts v. Street Improvement District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.