Legal Opinion

King v. Richardson

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

Decided April 14, 1909Published

1Opinion of the CourtGorman, J.

This is an action to enjoin the auditor and treasurer of Hamilton county from collecting by distress on the goods and chattels of. plaintiff, $316.46, claimed to be due on account of the tax assessed for- the business of trafficking in intoxicating liquors at No. 210 West Eighth street in Cincinnati,

*210Plaintiff is shown to be the owner of said house, 210 West Eighth street.

There is an entry on the liquor tax duplicate of Hamilton county for the year 1908 as follows: •

“Carrie Earl, 210 East Eighth street, ward six, commencing business February 19, $263.72.”

Plaintiff’s property wherein she…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Merced County v. Helm & NolanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Warren v. ShookSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Harris v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
  4. Weil v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
  5. State v. . BarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API