Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
RICHARD v. CITY OF MOBILE, 1908 — 208 U.S. 480 · caselaw · US
Tax
RICHARD v. CITY OF MOBILE
208 U.S. 48052 L. Ed. 581·Supreme Court of the United States·1908
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
RICHARD v. CITY OF MOBILE.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.
No. 112.
Argued January 17, 1908.
Decided February 24, 1908.
Decided on the authority of Phillips v. City of Mobile, ante, p. 472.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Richard William Stoutz, with whom Mr. Walter A. White was on the brief, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Burnell Boykin Boone for defendant in error.
Fpr abstracts of arguments see ante, p. 475.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Peckham]
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.