¶1rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:
¶2The State claims a license' tax which defendant resists on the ground that he is a manufacturer.
¶3His product is ice cream; and it is shown by the evi- ' dence that his- plant is of the most modern and sanitary construction.
¶4It is a large establishment, requiring a large investment of capital, operated by powerful machinery, giving employment to a large number of persons, doing an extensive business reaching even beyond the limits of the State; an establishment which may justly be termed a credit to the commerce of the city and' the enterprise of defendant.
¶5But the fact remains that his product is ice cream (a delicacy too well known to need any particular description).
¶6And the Supreme Court of the State, under a state of facts not essentially different from those at bar, has decided point blank that such an establishment was not a manufactory “in any sense of the word.”
¶7City vs. Mannessier, 32 An., 1075.
¶8We feel no more at liberty to disregard this opinion than did the District Judge, and must therefore affirm his judgment.
¶9Judgment affirmed.