State ex rel. Troll v. Hudson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. This was ail original proceeding in this court to -compel the respondent, who was collector of the revenue in the city of St. Louis, to issue to the relator a license to keep a dramshop in said city.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. This was ail original proceeding in this court to -compel the respondent, who was collector of the revenue in the city of St. Louis, to issue to the relator a license to keep a dramshop in said city. An ordinance of the city enacted in 1881, had imposed a license fee of $60. On the 2nd day of July, 1883, the relator tendered this amount and demanded a license, but respondent refused to issue it on the ground that the act of the general assembly of March 24th, 1883, was in force in said city, and that under that act he could not accept a less fee than $250. Section 3 of the act is as…
1Per curiam
i. dbamsiioi? licenses: police power: taxing power. The State has the right, in the exercise of its police power, to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors without a license. Austin v. State, 10 Mo. 591; State v. Lemp 16 Mo. 389; State v. Searcy, 20 Mo. 489. The license fee exacted by the general law regulating dramshops and the act amendatory thereof, approved March 24th, 1883, is not a tax within the meaning of sections 1, 3 and 10 of article 10 of the constitution, but is a price paid for the privilege of doing a thing, the doing of which the legislature has a right to prohibit…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chilvers v. PeopleMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
- People v. ThurberIllinois Supreme Court · 1852
- Bohler v. SchneiderSupreme Court of Georgia · 1873
- Henry v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1871
- State ex rel. Attorney-General v. McKeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Vernor v. Secretary of StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- State v. IngallsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1913
- Schmidt v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
- State v. Parker Distilling Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- State v. BixmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.