213 Ala. 421 105 So. 190

(105 So. 190)

TUCKER v. STATE.

(6 Div. 475.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 25, 1925.)

*422London, Yancey & Brower and Clara Cain, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

F. D. McArthur, of Birmingham, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves an interpretation of schedule 101, Acts 1919, p. '430, and which is set out in the case of Maury v. State, 208 Ala. 46, 93 So. 802, wherein the constitutionality of same was upheld by a majority of the court. The court is of the opinion that said subdivision applies to all who engage in the business of lending money as'an incident to the real estate business, whether as broker, agent, or for themselves, and therefore includes this appellant, who was engaged in the real estate business on commission, and who admitted that he accepted application for and negotiated loans for others and received compensation therefor. ’

The court is of the opinion that the provision is not repugnant to the Constitutiqn because the license fee is based on a sealage basis proportionate to the population of the cities and towns.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Tucker v. State
213 Ala. 421 105 So. 190

Case Details

Name
Tucker v. State
Decision Date
Jun 25, 1925
Citations

213 Ala. 421

105 So. 190

Jurisdiction
Alabama

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!