Asher v. State of Texas
Decision Date | 29 October 1888 |
Parties | ASHER v. STATE OF TEXAS. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Abel Crook, for plaintiff in error.
Jas. H. Hogg, Atty. Gen. of Texas, for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to the court of appeals of the state of Texas in a case of habeas corpus. By an act of the legislature of Texas passed May 4, 1882, it was provided that there shall be levied on and collected 'from every commercial traveler, drummer, salesman, or solicitor of trade, by sample or otherwise, an annual occupation tax of thirty-five dollars payable in advance; * * * to be paid to the comptroller of public accounts, whose receipts under seal shall be evidence of the payment of such tax;' and it was provided that every such commercial traveler, drummer, etc., 'shall, on demand of the tax collector of any county of the state, or any peace-officer of said county, exhibit to such officer the comptroller's receipt;' and on refusal 'shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and fined in a sum not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars.' And by article 110, c. 5, tit. 4, Pen. Code Tex., it is provided that 'any person who shall pursue or follow any occupation, calling, or profession, or do any act taxed by law, without first obtaining a license therefor, shall be fined in any sum not less than the amount of the taxes so due, and not more than double that sum.' By a statement of facts agreed upon by the parties, in the court below, it appears that William G. Asher, the plaintiff in error, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cobb v. Department of Public Works
...District, 120 U. S. 489, 7 S. Ct. 592, 30 L. Ed. 694; Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 8 S. Ct. 1380, 32 L. Ed. 311; Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S. 129, 9 S. Ct. 1, 32 L. Ed. 368; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U. S. 141, 9 S. Ct. 256, 32 L. Ed. 637; McCall v. California, 136 U. S. 104, 10 S. Ct. ......
-
Fox Film Corporation v. Trumbull
...S. 27, 22 S. Ct. 576, 46 L. Ed. 785; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622, 632, 23 S. Ct. 229, 47 L. Ed. 336; Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S. 129, 9 S. Ct. 1, 32 L. Ed. 368. But Connecticut has not attempted any such Whether the statute be regarded as a revenue measure, a police regulation, ......
-
State v. Bayer
...... (Robbins v. Shelby Taxing District, 120 U.S. 489;. Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640; Asher v. Texas, 128 U.S. 129; Corson v. Maryland, 120. U.S. 502; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U.S. 289;. Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U.S. 141; Caldwell. ......
-
Commonwealth v. Huntley
...... in which it was brought into this state; and the justice who. presided at the trial reported the case to this court. In the. second case ... Barber. In like manner, statutes forbidding the. transportation of all Texas cattle, whether diseased or not,. have been held unconstitutional, on the ground that they made. ...489,. 7 S.Ct. 592; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640,. 8 S.Ct. 1380; Asher v. Texas, 128 U.S. 129, 9 S.Ct. 1; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U.S. 141, 9 S.Ct. 256. The ......