Ahlers v. City of Estherville
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Emmet District Court.— IIon. A. D. Bailie, . Judge. Action to recover amount paid defendant city as mulct tax. The petition was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. —
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, J.
The plaintiff engaged in the business of selling intoxicating liquors in the city of Estherville November 3, 1899. All the conditions of the mulct law were complied with, save that requiring a general statement of consent, and a finding of its sufficiency by the board of supervisors, in conformity with sections 2448 and 2450 of the Code. A statement, sufficient as the law then stood, had been filed in 1894, but no action had been taken subsequent to the going in effect of the Code, October 1, 1897. The opinion in West v. Bishop, 110 Iowa, 410, deciding that statements filed before the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Morgan v. BellWashington Supreme Court · 1892
- Gerdine v. MenageSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Hemphill v. MoodySupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- Baker v. MasseySupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- City of Muscatine v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1876
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. YoungSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Commercial National Bank v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915