State v. Lagarde
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana
This suit was commenced by a petition filed in the civil district court for the parish of Orleans by the state of Louisiana, represented by M. J. Cunningham, attorney general, and Henry C. Newsom, commissioner of agriculture, against E. Lagarde & Son, a commercial partnership doing business in the city of New Orleans, and charging, among other things, said E. Lagarde & Son, as dealers in commercial fertilizers, with carrying on their business in violation and disregard of…
Read the full summary
This suit was commenced by a petition filed in the civil district court for the parish of Orleans by the state of Louisiana, represented by M. J. Cunningham, attorney general, and Henry C. Newsom, commissioner of agriculture, against E. Lagarde & Son, a commercial partnership doing business in the city of New Orleans, and charging, among other things, said E. Lagarde & Son, as dealers in commercial fertilizers, with carrying on their business in violation and disregard of the provisions and requirements of Act No. 51 of the Laws of Louisiana of 1886. That everything has been done -on the part…
1Opinion of the CourtPardee, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Counsel for respondents present no argument — make no assertion, even— that The act in question (No. 51 of the Laws of 1886) is constitutional; nor, on behalf of respondents, is denial made of the matters presented by the evidence read on the bearing, to the effect that the said law, in its operation, is purely a revenue law, and in no sense an inspection law, and that the bureau of agriculture and tlieir agents are threatening and intending to harass and annoy the complainants with civil and criminal prosecutions under the said act until they shall pay the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Leisy v. HardinSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- In Re SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Leloup v. Port of MobileSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Stoutenburgh v. HennickSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Glucose Refining Co. v. City of ChicagoU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1905
- Rhodes & Jacobs Manuf'g Co. v. New HampshireU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1895
- State v. SbragiaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909