Ex Parte Harduvel

150 So. 808, 25 Ala. App. 561, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 182
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided October 31, 1933·No. 6 Div. 560.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By the petition filed and now under consideration, we are called upon to decide whether the product known and called 3.2 beer can be legally sold under' the existing statutes and city ordinances predicated thereon.

By consent of respective parties hereto, and by their joint request, all questions of procedure and other technical questions are to be pretermitted, and the sole question, above stated, be decided upon its merits under the law as it now exists.

From this viewpoint, this court, sitting en banc, has given careful and attentive consideration to the points of decision involved, and we have reached the conclusion that the demurrers to the petition for writ of prohibition are in point and well taken, and said demuiTers are sustained.

The petition and demurrers thereto clearly raise the question above stated. There appears no good reason why we should indulge in an extended discussion.

Demurrer sustained ; writ denied.

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

Ex Parte Harduvel, 150 So. 808, 25 Ala. App. 561, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 182 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

150 So. 808 (Ex Parte Harduvel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Greenwood v. Abernathy
152 So. 33 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)