TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex parte Sundstrom

Ex Parte Gus Sundstrom

Ex parte Sundstrom, 8 S.W. 207 (Tex. App. 1888)
Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 7, 1888
Docket
No. 2460
Judges
Willson
Citations
8 S.W. 20725 Tex. Ct. App. 1331888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 37
Syllabus
Constitutional Law—Sunday Law.—Article 186 of the Penal Code, which denounces a penalty against any merchant, grocer or dealer in wares or merchandise, or trader in any lawful business (with certain exceptions) who shall sell or barter on Sunday, is constitutional.
Summary
Habeas Corpus on appeal from the Criminal District Court of Galveston. Tried below before the Hon; Gustav Cook. By direction of the court the arguments of counsel on both -sides are inserted in full, and they disclose all facts of any significance. The relator in this case was held under a complaint charging him, as a retail dealer, with selling liquor on Sunday. The several articles of the Penal Code involved in the trial of the questions raised by the relator appear in the brief of his counsel. Upon the hearing of the writ of habeas corpus, the relator was. remanded to the custody of the sheriff, and from this order this appeal is prosecuted to this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Willson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Willson, Judge.

Applicant Sundstrom being held, in custody by the sheriff of Galveston county under a warrant of arrest issued upon a complaint charging him with selling liquor on Sunday, he being a retail liquor dealer, he sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the Honorable Gustav Cook, judge of the criminal district court. Upon a hearing of said writ Judge Cook remanded applicant to the custody of said sheriff, and from said judgment applicant appealed to this court. At the last term of this court at Tyler said judgment was affirmed.

Applicant, by his counsel, filed a motion for rehearing, accompanied by an able and elaborate brief and argument, assailing the constitutionality of the law under which the applicant was being prosecuted, to wit, article 186 of the Penal Code. This motion was taken under advisement and transferred to this branch of the court in order that the questions presented might be thoroughly examined into, and that the Assistant Attorney General might have the opportunity of replying to the brief and argument of counsel for applicant. The Assistant Attorney General has filed a brief and argument in which he has fully, and to our minds, satisfactorily and conclusively answered the propositions, arguments and authorities advanced by counsel for the applicant. • He has cited and reviewed the decisions bearing upon the questions, and we find upon examination that his conclusions are fully supported by the authorities. It would be a useless consumption of time on our part to enter upon a discussion of the questions involved, which discussion would be necessarily lengthy, when they have been so ably and exhaustively discussed by the Assistant Attorney General. We shall therefore content ourselves by referring to and adopting his brief as our opinion in this case.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1914: 11961: 21964: 11968: 119142026peak 1961 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McGowan v. Maryland366 U.S. 420 (1961)
  2. Ex Parte Francis165 S.W. 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 1914) · Dissent
  3. Spartan Industries, Inc. v. State379 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. App. 1964)
  4. Hill v. Gibson Discount Center437 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. App. 1968)
  5. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. WW-1077 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1961)

Most recent

  1. Hill v. Gibson Discount Center437 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. App. 1968)
  2. Spartan Industries, Inc. v. State379 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. App. 1964)
  3. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. WW-1077 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1961)
  4. McGowan v. Maryland366 U.S. 420 (1961)
  5. Ex Parte Francis165 S.W. 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 1914) · Dissent

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list