Skip to content


Richard Vs. Mobile - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number208 U.S. 480
AppellantRichard
RespondentMobile
Excerpt:
.....the southern district of alabama syllabus decided on the authority of phillips v. city of mobile, ante, p. 208 u. s. 472 . the facts are stated in the opinion. mr. justice peckham delivered the opinion of the court. this is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of the united states for the southern district of alabama sustaining the demurrer of the city of mobile to a bill filed by the appellants and dismissing the same. it appears that the appellants sought to obtain an injunction to restrain the city from collecting the amount of the license tax imposed under the ordinance of the city upon those who were engaged in selling beer in the city by the barrel, half-barrel, or quarter-barrel. page 208 u. s. 481 the question involved.....
Judgment:
Richard v. Mobile - 208 U.S. 480 (1908)
U.S. Supreme Court Richard v. Mobile, 208 U.S. 480 (1908)

Richard v. Mobile

No. 112

Argued January 17, 1908

Decided February 24, 1908

208 U.S. 480

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

Syllabus

Decided on the authority of Phillips v. City of Mobile, ante, p. 208 U. S. 472 .

The facts are stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama sustaining the demurrer of the City of Mobile to a bill filed by the appellants and dismissing the same. It appears that the appellants sought to obtain an injunction to restrain the city from collecting the amount of the license tax imposed under the ordinance of the city upon those who were engaged in selling beer in the city by the barrel, half-barrel, or quarter-barrel.

Page 208 U. S. 481

The question involved is, as counsel for appellant admits, identical with that which has just been decided in the foregoing case, No. 113, and for the reasons therein stated, the judgment of the circuit court is

Affirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //