Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. State

158 So. 906, 26 Ala. App. 299, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 34

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 22, 1935

Docket4 Div. 101.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 So. 906 (Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. State, 158 So. 906, 26 Ala. App. 299, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 34 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

Defendant was indicted by the grand jury and charged that “It engaged in or carried on the business of displaying, offering- for sale, or selling fruit, in a city of less than 10,-000 inhabitants without having first obtained a license therefor and contrary to law.” The solicitor in drawing the indictment evidently had in mind schedule 76 of the Revenue Code (Acts 1919, p. 395, § 361, schedule 55), which provides a license for “Each fruit stand in cities or towns of over ten thousand inhabitants, ten dollars; in other places, five dollars.” Hill Grocery Co. v. State, post, p. 302, 159 So. 269.

It is not a violation of the revenue law to display, offer for sale, or to sell fruit in towns and cities of this state. The indictment charges no offense known to the law.

The judgment is reversed, and a judgment will here be entered discharging the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

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

SAMFORD, Judge.

Defendant was indicted by the grand jury and charged that “It engaged in or carried on the business of displaying, offering- for sale, or selling fruit, in a city of less than 10,-000 inhabitants without having first obtained a license therefor and contrary to law.” The solicitor in drawing the indictment evidently had in mind schedule 76 of the Revenue Code (Acts 1919, p. 395, § 361, schedule 55), which provides a license for “Each fruit stand in cities or towns of over ten thousand inhabitants, ten dollars; in other places, five dollars.” Hill Grocery Co. v. State, post, p. 302, 159 So. 269.

It is not a violation of the revenue law to display, offer for sale, or to sell fruit in towns and cities of this state. The indictment charges no offense known to the law.

The judgment is reversed, and a judgment will here be entered discharging the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 So. 906, 26 Ala. App. 299, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-v-state-alactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack