Legal Opinion
State v. W. M. Meador & Co.
Alabama Court of Appeals
Decided June 25, 1940No. 1 Div. 372PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICE, Judge.
This was a suit by the State — unsuccessful in the court below — seeking to recover of defendant, appellee, the privilege license levied by Section 348, Schedule 29, of the Revenue Code of 1935. Gen.Acts Ala. 1935 pp. 256, 450.
The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, incorporated in the bill of exceptions sent up here.
From this statement of facts, it is plain enough that appellee is a “merchandise-broker” within the meaning of the language of the above Schedule 29 of Section 348 of the Revenue Code of 1935. Stratford v. City Council of Montgomery, 110 Ala. 619, 20 So.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Osborne v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Stockard v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Yale Gas Stove Co. v. WilcoxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
- Stratford v. City Council of MontgomerySupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Osborne v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. McKenneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1958
- Leibold v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1954
- State v. SteinAlabama Court of Appeals · 1940
- City of Birmingham v. Hoffman & RobinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
- State v. McKenneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1958