Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

201 Ala. 62

77 So 356

Ex Parte Strawbridge

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 20, 1917

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1917-12-20

<p>1. Licenses @=>7(S) — Double Taxation.</p> <p>Acts 1915, p. 573, imposing license tax on vehicles, is not unconstitutional as double taxation.</p> <p>2. Certiorari <&wkey;36 — Scope.</p> <p>To grant writ of certiorari on a point or for reasons not presented to Court of Appeals, when petition for writ urged only grounds presented to such court, is in direct violation of rule 42 (175 Ala. xx), providing for hearing on certiorari only on matters for wMch rehearing in Court of Appeals has been refused.</p> <p>Certiorari to Court of Appeals.</p> <p>Petition by Will Strawbridge for certiorari to review order of 'Court of Appeals (76 South. 479), reversing judgment for the State and remanding.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Writ denied · Decided 1917-12-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 1971 · most notably Clark v. Whitfield (1925), Fite v. Pearson (1926)

30 state decisions

1701917192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 [1] The court is of the opinion that Acts 1915, p. 573, is not subject to the constitutional objection urged against same in brief and application and as considered and discussed by the Court of Appeals, and thinks that the writ should be denied.

¶2 [2] Whether or not the order or resolution of the commissioners of Lamar county, in fixing the punishment, was authorized by the act, or the act' is self-acting in this respect, is a question which seems not to have been presented to the Court of Appeals, and was not considered or discussed. Indeed, the petition for the certiorari and the brief in support of same, conforming to rule 42 (175 Ala. xx), urges a review and revision only of the points decided and discussed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. To grant the writ in this case for the reason suggested by some of the members of the court and reverse the Court of Appeals would he to do so upon a point never passed upon by said court and in direct violation of rule 42.

¶3 The writ is denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and GARDNER, JJ., concur.
/201/ala/62 · .json · Public domain