State v. W. M. Meador & Co.

198 So. 166, 240 Ala. 164, 1940 Ala. LEXIS 198
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided October 10, 1940·No. 1 Div. 123.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

GARDNER, Chief Justice.

The construction given to the statute by the Court of Appeals finds further support in a decision of this court in Lee v. Cunningham, 234 Ala. 639, 176 So. 477, and by the United States Supreme Court in Raley & Bros. v. Richardson, 264 U.S. 157, 44 S. Ct. 256, 68 L.Ed. 615, involving a tax on a merchandise broker. Though there are expressions in the opinion of the Court of Appeals which are at variance with the ruling here in Ex parte State of Alabama (In re: State of Alabama v. Thomas Stein) 29 Ala.App. 565, 199 So. 11, present term, and not to be approved, yet the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals in the instant case is correct and the writ is due to be denied.

Writ denied.

All Justices concur.

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

State v. W. M. Meador & Co., 198 So. 166, 240 Ala. 164, 1940 Ala. LEXIS 198 (Ala. 1940).

198 So. 166 (State v. W. M. Meador & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Birmingham v. Hoffman & Robinson
77 So. 2d 354 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)
Leibold v. Brown
71 So. 2d 7 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)
State v. Stein
199 So. 13 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)