City of Bessemer v. Dickens

43 So. 21, 149 Ala. 322, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 262
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided February 6, 1907·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J. —

The appellee was, after his appeal from the mayor’s court, acquitted, upon trial in the city court without jury, of all alleged violation of an ordinance against engaging in or carrying on a business to do which a license was required.

The assignments of error insisted on are directed against the propriety of the court’s action in dischargingappellee. The judgment of the city court must be affirmed, since the bill of exceptions fails to show that a sale was made by appellee. — Abel’s Case, 90 Ala. 631, 8 South. 760. Mere preparation to engage in or carry on a business in violation of such ordinances is not sufficient to warrant a conviction. .

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.

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

City of Bessemer v. Dickens, 43 So. 21, 149 Ala. 322, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 262 (Ala. 1907).

43 So. 21 (City of Bessemer v. Dickens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Opinion No. 71-428 (1971) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1971
Fidelity Casualty Co. of New York v. Raborn
173 So. 402 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Gibson Oil Co. v. Kelley
1934 OK 533 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
National Surety Co. v. Citizens' Light, Heat & Power Co.
78 So. 834 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Alabama Power Co. v. Hamilton
77 So. 356 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Town of Dadeville v. Wynn
70 So. 197 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Salmon v. Salmon
69 So. 304 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)