American Sugar Refining Co. v. City of New Orleans

Fifth Circuit

American Sugar Refining Co. v. City of New Orleans

119 F. 691, 55 C.C.A. 328, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4725

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1902

DocketNo. 920

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 119 F. 691 (American Sugar Refining Co. v. City of New Orleans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Sugar Refining Co. v. City of New Orleans, 119 F. 691, 55 C.C.A. 328, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4725 (5th Cir. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

When this case was before the circuit court, the learned trial judge followed State v. American Sugar Refining Co., 51 La. Ann. 562, 25 South. 447, where it was held by the supreme court of the state of Louisiana that the plaintiff in error, the American Sugar Refining Company, was not a manufacturer, within the meaning of article 206 of the constitution of the state of Louisiana (1879), exempting manufacturers under certain circumstances from license taxation. Since this writ of error has been pending another case between-the same parties has been brought before the supreme court of the state, and a decision rendered explicitly reversing the former case, and holding that the American Sugar Refining Company is a manufacturer of sugar, within the meaning of the constitution, and as such exempt from all licenses levied by the city or state. As the supreme court of the state has changed its ruling on the meaning of the article of the state constitution controlling the issues in the present case, we are bound to follow, even if we do not fully agree as to the correctness of the decision made. As, however, we do fully concur, we hasten to reverse the judgment of the lower court in this case, and remand the cause, with instructions to dismiss the same, at plaintiff’s costs. And it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

When this case was before the circuit court, the learned trial judge followed State v. American Sugar Refining Co., 51 La. Ann. 562, 25 South. 447, where it was held by the supreme court of the state of Louisiana that the plaintiff in error, the American Sugar Refining Company, was not a manufacturer, within the meaning of article 206 of the constitution of the state of Louisiana (1879), exempting manufacturers under certain circumstances from license taxation. Since this writ of error has been pending another case between-the same parties has been brought before the supreme court of the state, and a decision rendered explicitly reversing the former case, and holding that the American Sugar Refining Company is a manufacturer of sugar, within the meaning of the constitution, and as such exempt from all licenses levied by the city or state. As the supreme court of the state has changed its ruling on the meaning of the article of the state constitution controlling the issues in the present case, we are bound to follow, even if we do not fully agree as to the correctness of the decision made. As, however, we do fully concur, we hasten to reverse the judgment of the lower court in this case, and remand the cause, with instructions to dismiss the same, at plaintiff’s costs. And it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F. 691, 55 C.C.A. 328, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-sugar-refining-co-v-city-of-new-orleans-ca5-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack