BARROW v. CITY OF BESSEMER

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

6 Div. 56.

Attorney(S)

George W. Bains, of Bessemer, for petitioner. The ordinance is clearly a license for the conduct of the business of a manufacturer or bottler of soft drinks or the agents thereof, and the sale of bottled soft drinks within the police jurisdiction of the municipality is in direct violation of the ordinance. Mayor, etc., v. Goldstein, 151 Ala. 473, 44 So. 113; Ridgeway v. Bessemer, 9 Ala. App. 470, 64 So. 189. Ross, Bumgardner, Ross Ross, of Bessemer, for respondent. In order to convict the defendant under the ordinance in question, it was necessary to show that he engaged in the business of manufacturer or bottler of soft drinks. The mere proving that he engaged in selling such soft drinks did not constitute him a manufacturer or bottler.

Judges

BROWN, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

BARROW v. CITY OF BESSEMER.

BROWN, J.

The ordinance under which Barrow was prosecuted levies a license tax against persons, firms, or corporations engaged in the business of manufacturing or bottling soft drinks, or their agents, within the corporate limits of the city of Bessemer, using the method of bottling as a basis for classification.

Applying the rule of strict construction, it is clear that selling and delivering the product is not within the purview of the ordinance. This differentiates this case from Town of Guntersville v. Wright, 223 Ala. 349, 135 So. 634, and the cases therein cited.

On the facts stated by the Court of Appeals in its opinion, the case was properly disposed of by that court, and the writ of certiorari is due to be denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

BARROW v. CITY OF BESSEMER.

Comments