Cornelius v. Pruet

Supreme Court of Alabama

Cornelius v. Pruet

85 So. 430, 204 Ala. 189, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 79

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 10, 1920

Docket7 Div. 83.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 85 So. 430 (Cornelius v. Pruet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cornelius v. Pruet, 85 So. 430, 204 Ala. 189, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 79 (Ala. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole question involved in this appeal is whether or not the petitioner, who had served in the United States Navy for over four months between January 1, 1917, and November 11, 1918, and who had been honorably discharged, was entitled to be placed upon the list of the voters of his county without having first paid all poll tax due by him before enlistment. The state’s contention is that the constitutional amendment, section 194%, appearing in section 1 of the Acts of 1919, p. 724, exempts him only from the poll tax accruing against him after his enlistment, while the petitioner contends that the constitutional amendment exempts him from liability from all back unpaid tax now due, or for which he would have been otherwise liable, up to September 30, 1923.

Section-1 of said amendment reads as follows:

“That the following amendment to the Constitution of Alabama is hereby proposed to be submitted to the qualified voters of Alabama for their consideration as hereinafter pi'ovided, viz.:

“Sec. 194%. (A) Tlie payment of the poll tax mentioned in the Constitution of Alabama shall not be required of any person who served in the military or naval service of the United States for a 'period of not less than four months between January 1, 1917, and November 11, 1918, and who has been or who may be honorably discharged from said service and who was a qualified elector, except as to payment of poll taxes, at the time he entered said service, or who has since become such qualified elector, except as to payment of poll taxes. Any such person is exempted from the payment of all poll taxes until September 30, 1923. (B) Certificates of exemption from *190 payment of such poll taxes shall be issued to persons entitled thereto under regulations prescribed by the Governor.”

This court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s contention is correct, and that the said amendment clearly and without doubt or ambiguity exempts soldiers and sailors therein embraced from the payment of -all poll tax that might have been due by them before as well as after enlistment, or which may have arisen before September 30, 1923, but fox the said amendment.

The judgment of the trial "court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole question involved in this appeal is whether or not the petitioner, who had served in the United States Navy for over four months between January 1, 1917, and November 11, 1918, and who had been honorably discharged, was entitled to be placed upon the list of the voters of his county without having first paid all poll tax due by him before enlistment. The state’s contention is that the constitutional amendment, section 194%, appearing in section 1 of the Acts of 1919, p. 724, exempts him only from the poll tax accruing against him after his enlistment, while the petitioner contends that the constitutional amendment exempts him from liability from all back unpaid tax now due, or for which he would have been otherwise liable, up to September 30, 1923.

Section-1 of said amendment reads as follows:

“That the following amendment to the Constitution of Alabama is hereby proposed to be submitted to the qualified voters of Alabama for their consideration as hereinafter pi'ovided, viz.:

“Sec. 194%. (A) Tlie payment of the poll tax mentioned in the Constitution of Alabama shall not be required of any person who served in the military or naval service of the United States for a 'period of not less than four months between January 1, 1917, and November 11, 1918, and who has been or who may be honorably discharged from said service and who was a qualified elector, except as to payment of poll taxes, at the time he entered said service, or who has since become such qualified elector, except as to payment of poll taxes. Any such person is exempted from the payment of all poll taxes until September 30, 1923. (B) Certificates of exemption from *190 payment of such poll taxes shall be issued to persons entitled thereto under regulations prescribed by the Governor.”

This court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s contention is correct, and that the said amendment clearly and without doubt or ambiguity exempts soldiers and sailors therein embraced from the payment of -all poll tax that might have been due by them before as well as after enlistment, or which may have arisen before September 30, 1923, but fox the said amendment.

The judgment of the trial "court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 So. 430, 204 Ala. 189, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornelius-v-pruet-ala-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack