Case Name: HAMMOND ICE, LIGHT & BOTTLING CO., Limited, v. BALLARD, Tax Collector
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1914-04-27
Citations: 135 La. 201
Docket Number: No. 20,027
Parties: HAMMOND ICE, LIGHT & BOTTLING CO., Limited, v. BALLARD, Tax Collector.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 202–204

Head Matter:
(65 South. 108)
No. 20,027.
HAMMOND ICE, LIGHT & BOTTLING CO., Limited, v. BALLARD, Tax Collector.
(April 27, 1914.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Courts (§ 224*) — Jurisdiction—Supreme Court — Legality oe License Tax.
This court has jurisdiction of a case in which, under the pleadings, the legality of a license tax is in contestation, without regard to the amount involved. Article 85 of the Constitution.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 487, 608, 609, 614, 616, 617; Dec. Dig. § 224.*]
2. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 55*) — Licenses— Nonintoxicating Beverages.
Section 4 of Act No. 178 of 1912 declares that malt liquors containing less than 2 per cent, of alcohol are not to be regarded as intoxicating liquors.
Under the provisions of Act No. 178 of 1912, tax collectors are required to collect for and issue licenses for the sale of malt liquors containing less than 2 per cent, of alcohol, even in the parishes in which the sale of intoxicating liquors is prohibited, and even though the parochial authorities have not levied a license tax for the sale of malt liquors containing less than 2 per cent, of alcohol.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ .55, 56; Dec. Dig. § 55.*]
Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; R. S. Ellis, Judge.
Action by the Hammond Ice, Light & Bottling Company, Limited, against John A. Ballard, tax collector. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Ponder & Ponder and W. H. McClendon, Dist. Atty., both of Amite City, for appellant. R., C. & S. Reid, of Amite City, for appellee.

Opinion:
On the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal:
O'NIELL, J.
The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. Under the pleadings, the legality of the license tax imposed by the Act No. 178 of 1912 is in contestation. Article 85 of the Constitution confers jurisdiction upon this court in such a case. The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.