Talk:Stoutenburgh v. Hennick/Opinion of the Court

This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page.

Information about this edition
Edition:	Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, in the police court of the District of Columbia upon an information stating that he, in April, 1887, 'did engage in the business of a commercial agent, to-wit, the business of offering for sale, as agent of Lyons, Conklin & Co, a firm doing business in the city of Baltimore, state of Maryland, certain goods, wares, and merchandise by sample, catalogue, and otherwise, without having first obtained a license to do so, contrary to and in violation of an act of the late legislative assembly of the District of Columbia, entitled 'An act imposing a license on trades, business, and professions practiced or carried on in the District of Columbia,' and providing for the enforcement and collection of fines and penalties for carrying on business in the said district without license, approved August 23, A D 1871, and the amendments to the said act, approved June 20, A D 1872,' and sentenced 'to pay a fine of five dollars, in addition to the license tax of two hundred dollars, and in default to be committed to the workhouse for the term of sixty days,' and, being in default, was so committed He applied to one of the justices of the supreme court of the District for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus, which was certified to be heard in the first instance in the general term of that court, and, upon hearing, it was held 'that the law for the violation of which the petitioner is held is not a valid law,' and his discharge from custody was ordered accordingly; whereupon this writ of error was sued out .
Source:	Stoutenburgh v. Hennick from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/129
Contributor(s):	BenchBot
Level of progress:	Text being edited
Notes:	Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information.
Proofreaders: