State v. Bixman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Graves, Judge. (1) The Act of May 4, 1899, is a revenue measure and imposes a tax. The title or phraseology of a statute can not control its ultimate meaning and validity. This must be determined by the courts upon an examination of its true nature and effect. A statute, enacted under all the forms of law, may nevertheless be destructive of some constitutional right or violate some constitutional limitation.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Graves, Judge. (1) The Act of May 4, 1899, is a revenue measure and imposes a tax. The title or phraseology of a statute can not control its ultimate meaning and validity. This must be determined by the courts upon an examination of its true nature and effect. A statute, enacted under all the forms of law, may nevertheless be destructive of some constitutional right or violate some constitutional limitation. “In whatever language a statute may be framed, its purpose must be determined by its natural and reasonable effect.” Henderson v. New York…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, J.
This prosecution is bottomed upon an act of the General Assembly of this State approved May 4, 1899, entitled, “An Act creating the office of inspector of beer and malt liquors of the State and providing for the inspection of beer and malt liquors manufactured and sold in this State.” The act in full will be found in the Session Acts or Laws of Missouri 1899, p. 228. For having sold beer which had not been inspected and stamped as required by this act, defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Henry county at the May term, 1900, of the circuit court of said county, convicted, and fined one…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Barbier v. ConnollySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Bell's Gap Railroad v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Thurlow v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1847
- Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- State v. McKinneyMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- City of Joplin v. Joplin Water Works CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1965
- State v. Parker Distilling Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- State ex rel. Tolerton v. GordonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- State ex rel. School District v. GordonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.