State v. . Kirkpatrick
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendant from Shaw, J., at September Term, 1919, of MECKLENBURG. Tbe defendant was convicted of selling milk witbin tbe city limits of Charlotte without having first obtained a permit from tbe health authorities of said city, and was fined $5 and costs, and appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtClark, C. J.
The appeal raises the question of the validity of the ordinance of the city of Charlotte, see. 116, subsec. 2, which provides: “No person, firm, or corporation shall engage in the sale, handling, or distribution or production of milk for sale in the city of Charlotte, nor shall any person ship any milk into the city of Charlotte until he has obtained a permit therefor from the health authorities of said city. This permit shall be renewed on or before the first day of July in each year, and may be suspended or revoked at any time for cause. Each person applying for a permit shall pay to the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lawrence v. . NissenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- State v. . MedlinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- State v. . BurbageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- City of Chicago v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1916
- State v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. McGeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Suddreth v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- State v. TowerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Clark's Charlotte, Inc. v. HunterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- State v. . RobersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.