Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1892

State v. Dielenschneider

Supreme Court of Louisiana · Decided December 15, 1892 · No. 11 · Fenner

44 La. Ann. 1116

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Parish Council of Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Louisiana Highway & Heavy Branch of Associated General Contractors, Inc. (La. Ct. App. 1961)
Board of Barber Examiners v. Parker (La. 1938)
State v. Crescent City Laundries, Inc. (La. 1936)
State v. Cohn (La. 1936)
White Cleaners & Dyers v. Hughes (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1934)
State v. Up-To-Date Shoe Repairing Co. (La. 1932)
State v. Chicago Hat Works (La. 1932)
Baker v. Maxwell (Iowa 1918)
State v. C. C. Hartwell Co. (La. 1906)

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

The Constitution of the State exempts from license taxation persons “ engaged in mechanical pursuits.”

Defendant is a barber, and the sole question is whether the trade of barber is a “mechanical pursuit,” within the meaning of the Constitution.

We think it is. The labor of a barber is manual; his work is mechanical. Hair cutting is as much a mechanical pursuit as wood cutting. See on the subject: City vs. Lagman, 43 An. 1180; Tax Collector vs. OConnors, 42 An. 787; City vs. Bailey, 35 An. 545.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.