RICHARD
v.
CITY OF MOBILE
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 sell-’ ing beer in the city by the barrel, half barrel or quarter barrel. The question involved is, as counsel for appellants 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frankel v. Woodrough, 7 F.2d 796 (8th Cir. 1925)…ll v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 586, 20 S. Ct. 448, 44 L. Ed. 597; West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258, 262, 24 S. Ct. 650, 48 L. Ed. 965; Ex rel. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445, 447, 24 S. Ct. 703, 48 L. Ed. 1062; Ughbanks v. Arstrong, 208 U. S. 481, 487, 28 S. Ct. 372, 52 L. Ed. 582) and conflict of jurisdiction of different sovereignties (Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 370, 21 L. Ed. 287; Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583, 597, 15 L. Ed. 1028; Ponzi v. Fessenden, 254 U. S. 254, 42 S. Ct. 309, 66 L. Ed. 607, 22 A.…
-
Junius S. Washington v. United States, 401 F.2d 915 (D.C. Cir. 1968)…57 S.Ct. 883. . Central Lumber Co. v. State of South Dakota, 226 U.S. 157, 160-161, 33 S.Ct. 66, 57 L.Ed. 164 (1912); Coffey v. Harlan County, 204 U.S. 659, 662, 27 S.Ct. 305, 51 L.Ed. 666 (1907). See also Ugh banks v. Armstrong, 208 U.S. 481, 487, 28 S.Ct. 372, 52 L.Ed. 582 (1908); Leeper v. Texas, 139 U.S. 462, 467-468, 11 S.Ct. 577, 35 L.Ed. 225 (1891); Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692, 697-698, 11 S.Ct. 224, 34 L.Ed. 816 (1891). . McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (19…
-
Sigler v. Lowrie, 404 F.2d 659 (8th Cir. 1968)…e subject to the warden’s administrative discretion. A state legislature may grant a favor to a convicted criminal, but it also may attach such conditions to the granting of the favor as it deems proper. See Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 208 U.S. 481, 488, 28 S.Ct. 372, 52 L.Ed. 582 (1908). Under § 83-439 it is provided that up to one-third of the monies earned may be provided for the prisoner’s use. The precise amount is placed within the warden’s discretion as to what is “just and equitable” and may depend upon…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence