People v. Lyng
Michigan Supreme Court
Exceptions from Iron. (Grant, J.) Eespondent was convicted of engaging in the business of selling liquors without having paid the tax required by law. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
Respondent was prosecuted and convicted under an information which alleges substantially that on July 19, 1888, at the village of Iron River, in the county of Iron, in this State, the respondent was a person whose business consisted in part of selling at wholesale brewed and malt liquors (not proprietary patent medicine), as agent for Franz Hagemeister and Henry Hagemeister,. copartners, doing business in the city of Green Bay, Wis., *581under the firm name of Hagemeister & Son, without he or they having paid in full or in part the tax required by law to be paid upon the business, neither he nor…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Thurlow v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1847
- Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Walling v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Youngblood v. SextonMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. HeikkalaMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
- People v. SchotteyMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Newton v. McKaySupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Oldetyme Distillers, Inc. v. GordyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1936
- People v. DenewethMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.