Stewart v. Potts

49 Miss. 749
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 49 Miss. 749 (Stewart v. Potts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stewart v. Potts, 49 Miss. 749 (Mich. 1874).

Opinion

Tarbeli, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court;

Habeas corpus to release and discharge the plaintiff in error from arrest after conviction, under section 1750 of the Code. Stewart is an attorney at law, holding a license in accordance with the laws of Mississippi. By the act of the legislature, approved April 6, 1874, a tax of $10.00 is levied upon practicing lawyers, as a tax upon privileges, and this is made an amendment to section 1747 of the Code. By section 1750, the exercise of this privilege, without first paying the tax, is made a misdemeanor, and: upon conviction before a justice of the peace or other court of competent jurisdiction, the party violating these- statutes is subjected to fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court. The plaintiff in error was prosecuted and convicted before a magistrate, for a violation of the foregoing statutes, and being in the custody of the sheriff, Upon process issued upon such conviction, prayed out the writ of habeas corpus before the Chancellor of the 8th judicial district, who, after hearing the facts and the arguments, remanded the party to the custody of the sheriff. Hence a writ of error. The only question made before the Chancellor, and the only one submitted to this court, is as to the constitutionality of the tax. This question is considered too Well settled to require discussion. This right has been directly exercised by the Bed--eral government, and its equivalent has been practiced by this State ever since its organisation, The same may be said of every other State in the Union. If the tax is inexpedient, or excessive, the remedy is at the ballot box.

Referring, therefore, to the practice of the Bederal and. State governments, including oUr own, and to numerous authorities, the constitutionality of the tax involved, is sustained, without further discussion.

The action of the court below is affirmed.

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

Related

Yazoo & M. v. R. v. Board of Mississippi Levee Com'rs
195 So. 704 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1940)
State Ex Rel. Botkin v. Welsh
251 N.W. 189 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1933)
In re Dixon
183 P. 642 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1919)
City of Chicago v. Morelle
247 Ill. 383 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1910)
Ex Parte Williams
21 L.R.A. 783 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1892)
City of Little Rock v. Prather
46 Ark. 471 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1885)
In re Watson
15 F. 511 (D. Vermont, 1882)
Young v. Thomas
17 Fla. 169 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1879)
City of St. Louis v. Sternberg
4 Mo. App. 453 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Miss. 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-potts-miss-1874.