Case ID: ala_201/html/0062-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(77 South. 356)
    Ex parte STRAWBRIDGE. STATE v. STRAWBRIDGE.
    (6 Div. 660.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Dec. 20, 1917.)
    1. Licenses @=>7(S) — Double Taxation.
    Acts 1915, p. 573, imposing license tax on vehicles, is not unconstitutional as double taxation.
    2. Certiorari <&wkey;36 — Scope.
    To grant writ of certiorari on a point or for reasons not presented to Court of Appeals, when petition for writ urged only grounds presented to such court, is in direct violation of rule 42 (175 Ala. xx), providing for hearing on certiorari only on matters for wMch rehearing in Court of Appeals has been refused.
    Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
    Petition by Will Strawbridge for certiorari to review order of 'Court of Appeals (76 South. 479), reversing judgment for the State and remanding.
    Writ denied.
    M. S. Carmichael, M. A. Owen, and Claude Riley, all of Elba, J. A. Carnley, of Enterprise, and C. C. Nesmith, of Birmingham, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and P. W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The court is of the opinion that Acts 1915, p. 573, is not subject to the constitutional objection urged against same in brief and application and as considered and discussed by the Court of Appeals, and thinks that the writ should be denied.

Whether or not the order or resolution of the commissioners of Lamar county, in fixing the punishment, was authorized by the act, or the act' is self-acting in this respect, is a question which seems not to have been presented to the Court of Appeals, and was not considered or discussed. Indeed, the petition for the certiorari and the brief in support of same, conforming to rule 42 (175 Ala. xx), urges a review and revision only of the points decided and discussed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. To grant the writ in this case for the reason suggested by some of the members of the court and reverse the Court of Appeals would he to do so upon a point never passed upon by said court and in direct violation of rule 42.

The writ is denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and GARDNER, JJ., concur.