Cessill v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Mississippi Circuit Court. Hon. L. L. Mack, Circuit Judge. Cites: Constitution 1874, 1836; Cooley, Const. Lim., p. 31; 5 Wheat, p. 696; 10 Wall, 91; 13 How., 381; Smith’s &. C., 2nd Yol. 225; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 Howard; 10 Pet., 662; Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall., 395; Bole v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 1 Black’s R. 204. Cites: Const, of 1836 and 1874; Mo. v. Ky., 11 Wall., 395; Bates v. III. Cent. R. Co., 1 Black, 204; Myers v. Perry, 1 La.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Mississippi Circuit Court. Hon. L. L. Mack, Circuit Judge. Cites: Constitution 1874, 1836; Cooley, Const. Lim., p. 31; 5 Wheat, p. 696; 10 Wall, 91; 13 How., 381; Smith’s &. C., 2nd Yol. 225; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 Howard; 10 Pet., 662; Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall., 395; Bole v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 1 Black’s R. 204. Cites: Const, of 1836 and 1874; Mo. v. Ky., 11 Wall., 395; Bates v. III. Cent. R. Co., 1 Black, 204; Myers v. Perry, 1 La. Am., 372; State v. Muller, 35 Iowa, 199; Rover on Interest at Law, ch. 34, especially pp. 337-342.
1Opinion of the CourtEakin, J.
Appellant was convicted of selling liquors without license. The sales were made on a boat permanently anchored on the Mississippi river, off the Arkansas shore, opposite Mississippi county. The theory of the defense was that the spot was not in the State, inasmuch as the present “main channel” of the river which here forms the eastern boundary of the State, does not'[now run as it did on the 30th of October, 1874, when the boundaries of the State were last defined; but that then the principal channel ran to the west of the present'location of the boat, leaving it outside of the State.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Missouri v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. Muncie Pulp Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1907
- Bishel v. FariaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Pike v. HoodSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
- Wolfe v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912