State v. Case
Decision Date | 01 February 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 88.,88. |
Citation | 103 A. 569,132 Md. 269 |
Parties | STATE v. CASE. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Carroll County; Wm. H. Forsythe, Jr., Judge.
Paul Case was indicted for carrying on the business of construction without a license. From a judgment sustaining defendant's demurrer to the indictment, the State appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.
Philip B. Perlman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Albert C. Ritchie, Atty. Gen. (William L. Seabrook, States Atty., of Westminster, on the brief), for the State. F. Neal Parke, of Westminster (James A. C. Bond, of Westminster, on the brief), for appellee.
The appellee, a resident builder of Carroll county, was indicted under section 184 of chapter 704 of the Acts of 1916, for carrying on the business of construction without having first taken out a license. He demurred to the indictment, which the lower court sustained, and from the judgment entered the state appealed.
The act is a lengthy one, and we will set out only such portions of it as are applicable for this decision:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. State
...... sales and deliveries of articles to possible [177 Md. 326] . customers. Moving or itinerant trading, sales negotiated. along the way, with simultaneous deliveries, are essentials. The mode of travel is not important, especially in this case,. as the appellant was moving about in a motor vehicle, which. is a mode within the express terms of the law. Code, art. 56,. § 27. Com. v. Ober, 12 Cush., Mass., 493;. Allport v. Murphy, 153 Mich. 486, 116 N.W. 1070;. St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583, 84 S.W. 914;. Emert v. Missouri, 156 ......
-
Brown v. State, 46.
...and who sells within the state. He would have no grievance from that requirement and could not object because of it. In State v. Case, 132 Md. 269, 272, 103 A. 569, 570, objection to a license requirement was made by a resident on the ground that the license tax law discriminated against no......
-
Beard v. American Agency Life Ins. Co.
...in a business partnership or firm. For the proposition that an individually owned farm may be a "firm," Beard relies upon State v. Case, 132 Md. 269, 103 A. 569 (1918). In that case, referring to the provisions of a Maryland statute, we noted that ordinarily " '[t]he singular always include......
-
Turner v. State
...444 U.S. 858, 100 S.Ct. 119, 62 L.Ed.2d 77 (1979); State v. Cherry, 224 Md. 144, 155, 167 A.2d 328, 333 (1961); State v. Case, 132 Md. 269, 272, 103 A. 569, 570 (1918). This Court has recently recognized that there are circumstances under which the general rule that a person may not assert ......