Lee v. Intendant & Town Council of LaFayette
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Loudonville Milling Co. v. Davis (Ala. 1948)
- City of Roanoke v. Stewart Grocery Co. (Ala. 1937)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Hall Auto Co. (Ala. 1933)
- Tyson v. Jennings Produce Co. (Ala. Ct. App. 1917)
- Crum v. Town of Prattville (Ala. 1908)
- Padgett v. Gulfport Fertilizer Co. (Ala. Ct. App. 1914)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
— This is a prosecution, instituted by the intendant and councilmen of the town of La Fayette, against the defendant (appellant), for selling ranges without a. license and contrary to an ordinance of the town, which requires a license from each sewing machine, clock, stove or range company, selling sewing machines, clocks, stoves or ranges, in the town of La Fayette, etc. The case made by the agreed statement of facts does not differ materially from that of Stratford v. City Council of Montgomery, and on the authority of the Stratford Case, and cases there cited, it must be held that the circuit court erred in giving the general charge requested by the plaintiff. — Stratford v. City Council of Montgomery, 110 Ala. 619, 20 South. 127; Leisy & Co.. v. Hardin, 135 U. S, 100, 10 Sup. Ct. 681, 34 L. Ed. 128; French v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 222, 58 S. W. 1015, 52 L. R. A. 160; Miller & Co. v. Goodman, 91 Tex. 41, 40 S. W. 718; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Johnson, 84 Ga. 754, 11 S. E. 233, 8 L. R. A. 273.
The judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and a judgment will he here rendered discharging the defendant.
Reversed, and rendered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.