CRUTE
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Crute was convicted of operating a vaudeville show without a license in Huntsville, Alabama. The court upheld the conviction, holding that a license for a moving picture show does not authorize vaudeville performances, and a separate license is required for each type of show.
A license for a moving picture show does not authorize vaudeville performances. The phrase "or show of like character" does not encompass vaudeville shows, and a separate, specific license is required for conducting vaudeville shows under the applicable revenue statutes.
“We are of the opinion, as a matter of common knowledge, that there is a marked distinction between a moving picture show and a vaudeville show; and it is evident that the intent of the Legislature was to this effect, as specific licenses are required under the schedules, supra, for a moving picture show and also for a vaudeville show.”
The court's core holding that different shows require different licenses based on the Legislature's clear intent and the factual distinction between show types.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant operated a moving picture show in Huntsville, Alabama and also advertised, staged, and charged admission for vaudeville shows. He obtained a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This appellant was convicted for the offense of operating a vaudeville show without a license.
The facts adduced upon the trial were practically without dispute, and disclosed that appellant, during the period of time covered by the affidavit, conducted a moving picture show in the city of Huntsville, Ala.; that the main feature of his business was the exhibition of moving pictures. He had also advertised and staged and charged admission for vaudeville shows. He had obtained a license to operate a moving picture show, but had failed or refused to take out a license to run a vaudeville show.
But one question is here presented, whether or not the appellant was required to procure and pay for a license for conducting a vaudeville show as provided by section 303, Revenue Laws 1923, schedule 110 (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 433, § 361, schedule 106), or did the license procured by him, above referred to, authorize him to conduct such vaudeville performances also, without procuring the additional license.
The license issued to him was for a moving picture show, under schedule 111 (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 434, § 361, schedule 107) and this provides:
"For each person engaged in conducting a moving picture show, or show of like character, to which admission is charged," etc.
Appellant insists that the phrase, "or show of like character," contained in his license, precluded the necessity of securing a specific license for his vaudeville show, thus contending that a vaudeville show is a show of like character to a moving picture show, in contemplation of law. We do not so conclude. We are of the opinion, as a matter of common knowledge, that there is a marked distinction between a moving picture show and a vaudeville show; and it is evident that the intent of the Legislature was to this effect, as specific licenses are required under the schedules, supra, for a moving picture show and also for a vaudeville show. The lower court took this view, and we think correctly so. There is probably some analogy to this conclusion in the case of Professor Jacko v. State, 22 Ala. 73.
It follows therefore that the judgment of conviction appealed from must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (60 total)
-
Cragin v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co., 133 So. 569 (Fla. 1931)…were taken. Plaintiffs in error have assigned as error the overruling of plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's first plea, the plea of res judicata, and the rendition of final judgment against the plaintiff. The case of Hay v. Salisbury 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617, and Gray v. Gray, 91 Fla. 103, 107 So. 261, state the essentials of the doctrine of res judicata, as long recognized in this jurisdiction. This principle was recognized by the Roman law, and later by the English courts, and it is said that it perv…
-
Tilton v. Horton, 103 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1931)…tion of the defendant in error seems to be based upon the wording of the decisions of this court in the cases of Jones v. Morgan, 59 Fla. 542, 52 So. 140; Semple v. Semple, 90 Fla. 7, 105 So. 134; and the later case of Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617, wherein this Court, quoting with approval from 15 R. C. L. 963, stated that when the second suit is between the same parties as the first and on the same cause of action the judgment on the former is conclusive in the latter not only as to every qu…
-
Warren D. Hinchee et ux. v. Charles E. Fisher et ux., 93 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1957)…djudicata is the proper test. By this we mean it is not controlling except in an instance wherein the second suit is between the same parties and is predicated upon the same cause of action as was the first.” In Hay v. Salisbury, 1926, 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617 we held that where the essential elements of the cause of action are the same in both cases, res adjudicata applies to preclude the second suit. The fact that an unjust enrichment type of relief is made more explicit in the second complaint does not…
Previewing 3 of 60 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence