State v. Dielenschneider

44 La. Ann. 1116
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided December 15, 1892·No. No. 11,070·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

The Constitution of the State exempts from license taxation persons “ engaged in mechanical pursuits.”

Defendant is a barber, and the sole question is whether the trade of barber is a “mechanical pursuit,” within the meaning of the Constitution.

We think it is. The labor of a barber is manual; his work is mechanical. Hair cutting is as much a mechanical pursuit as wood cutting. See on the subject: City vs. Lagman, 43 An. 1180; Tax Collector vs. OConnors, 42 An. 787; City vs. Bailey, 35 An. 545.

Judgment affirmed.

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

State v. Dielenschneider, 44 La. Ann. 1116 (La. 1892).

44 La. Ann. 1116 (State v. Dielenschneider) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Board of Barber Examiners v. Parker
182 So. 485 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1938)
State v. Crescent City Laundries, Inc.
165 So. 315 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1936)
State v. Cohn
165 So. 449 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1936)
White Cleaners & Dyers v. Hughes
7 F. Supp. 1017 (W.D. Louisiana, 1934)
State v. Up-To-Date Shoe Repairing Co.
144 So. 714 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1932)
State v. Chicago Hat Works
141 So. 844 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1932)
Baker v. Maxwell
183 Iowa 1192 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Jackson v. State
117 S.W. 818 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1908)
State v. C. C. Hartwell Co.
41 So. 444 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1906)