TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

New Home Sewing Machine Co. v. Fletcher

New Home Sewing Machine Co. v. Fletcher, Sheriff and Collector

New Home Sewing Mach. Co. v. Fletcher, 44 Ark. 139 (1884)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1884
Judges
Cockrill
Citations
44 Ark. 139
Headnotes
1. Taxes: JLicense: Sewing machine, companies. Sewing machine companies incorporated in other States, and doing business in this State, and their agents, are liable to the license tax imposed by section 4 of revenue act of 1883. 2. Injunction: None against criminal prosecutions. Chancery will not interfere by injunction to prevent anticipated criminal prosecutions.
Summary
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor.

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

Opinion of the Court — Cockrill

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

Cockrill, C. J. The New Home Sewing Machine Company, a foreign corporation doing business in this State, sought to enjoin the sheriff and collector of Pulaski county from demanding of its agents the license tax imposed on sewing machine companies and their agents by section 4 of the revenue act of 1888, and from prosecuting them in the criminal courts for violating its provisions-. M. W. Shaw joined in the complaint with the company, alleging that he .was a merchant selling machines, nut as agent but for profit, as other merchandise is sold. The Chancellor dismissed the complaint.

This was correct. The company is liable to the payment of the license tax (Baker v. State, ante, 134), and Shaw can make his defense at law, when he is proceeded against for a violation of the statute. Chancery courts will not interfere by way of injunction to prevent anticipated criminal prosecutions. Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. Little Rock, 39 Ark., 412.

Affirm.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1900: 11908: 21915: 11945: 119002026peak 1908 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Kenamore v. Wood56 S.W. 474 (Mo. 1900)
  2. State Ex McNamara v. Clark187 S.W. 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)
  3. Dreyfus v. Boone114 S.W. 718 (Ark. 1908)
  4. State ex rel. Attorney General v. Karston187 S.W.2d 327 (Ark. 1945) · Dissent
  5. Rider v. Leatherman107 S.W. 996 (Ark. 1908)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Attorney General v. Karston187 S.W.2d 327 (Ark. 1945) · Dissent
  2. State Ex McNamara v. Clark187 S.W. 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)
  3. Dreyfus v. Boone114 S.W. 718 (Ark. 1908)
  4. Rider v. Leatherman107 S.W. 996 (Ark. 1908)
  5. State ex rel. Kenamore v. Wood56 S.W. 474 (Mo. 1900)

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
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list