Rainey v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Defendant filed exceptions to the indictment, (1) because it did not. negative the fact that defendant was a merchant; (2) the law under which it was drawn was violative of article 8, sections 1 and 2, of the Constitution. The exceptions were overruled. Ho statement necessary.
1Opinion of the Court
HENDERSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of pursuing an occupation taxed by law without having first procured a license, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $20, and he appeals.
The only question presented that requires consideration is the constitutionality of the tax levied, under which appellant was convicted. The conviction here was under subdivision 38 of the act of the special session of the 'Twenty-fifth Legislature. See page 54. Said subdivision reads as follows: “From every cotton buyer, or buyer of wool or hides, ten dollars; provided, that a merchant who pays an occupation tax…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pullman P. C. Co. v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by31 opinions
- Key Western Life Insurance v. State Board of InsuranceTexas Supreme Court · 1961
- State v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1985
- Soto v. Territory of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1908
- State v. Pioneer Oil & Refining Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1927
- State v. BreyerIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.