Miller v. State
Miller v. State.
Miller v. State, 96 So. 718 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923)
Opinion of the Court
SAMEORD, J.
The indictment in both counts follows the statute, and is sufficient.
We have several times held that the Volstead Act ( 41 Stat. 305 ) does not supersede the state laws prohibiting the manufacture of whisky. Mary Banks v. State, 207 Ala. 170 , 93 South. 293 .
The exceptions reserved to the introduction of evidence are without merit.
, We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. .
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.