Huttenstein v. State

Decided January 15, 1861

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1861-01-15

From the City Court of .Mobile. Tried before the Hon. Henry Chamberlain. The indictment in this case charged, that the defendant did keep a restaurant, or eating-house, without a license, .and contrary to lawl” The defendant moved to quash the indictment, and also demurred to it, on the ground that it did not sufficiently describe the offense. The court refused to quash,.and overruled the demurrer; and the defendant reserved exceptions to its decisions.

Relies on Stovall v. Johnson · Moore v. State · Pettibone v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1947

1 district · 4 state decisions

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 →

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

¶1Section 399 of the Code is *158move comprehensive than the statutes under which the indictments in the cases of Pettibone v. State, (19 Ala. 586,) Eubanks v. State, (17 Ala. 181,) and Moore v. State, (16 Ala. 411,) were framed. The section of the Code referred to is not confined to the engaging in a business or employment, but extends to the doing of any act, without first obtaining a license, for which a license is required by the article in which the section is found. We think the motion to quash, and the demurrer in this case, were properly overruled.

¶2Judgment affirmed.