David Stewart v. People of the State of Michigan

• Decision Date: 23 March 1914
• Docket Number: No. 239,239
• Citation: 232 U.S. 665,34 S.Ct. 476,58 L.Ed. 786
• Parties: DAVID J. STEWART, Piff. in Err., v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

232 U.S. 665

34 S.Ct. 476

58 L.Ed. 786

DAVID J. STEWART, Piff. in Err.,

v PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

No. 239.

Argued and submitted March 6, 1914.

Decided March 23, 1914.

Messrs. G. M. Valentine and G. W. Bridgman for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 665-667 intentionally omitted] Mr. Grant Fellows, Attorney General of Michigan, for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in a justice court upon a criminal information which charged that 'one David J. Stewart did travel from place to place within the county of Berrien, state of Michigan, for the purpose of taking orders for the purchase of goods, ware, and merchandise, by sample, lists, and catalogues, without having then and there obtained a license as a hawker and peddler, as required and provided by chapter 136 of the Compiled Laws of Michigan of 1897, as amended.' From that judgment an appeal was taken to the county court where the cause was tried de novo by a jury, resulting again in a conviction, and that judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state (167 Mich. 417, 132 N. W. 1071). This writ of error was then prosecuted.

There are several assignments of error of a Federal nature, but the consideration of one—the asserted repugnancy of the statute upon which the warrant was based to the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States—will enable us to dispose of the case. The statute provides:

'No person shall be authorized to travel from place to place within this state, for the purpose of carrying to sell or exposing to sale any goods, wares, or merchandise or to take orders for the purchase of goods, wares, or merchandise, by sample, lists, or catalogues, unless he shall have obtained a license as a hawker and peddler in the manner hereinafter directed.' [Comp. Laws 1897, § 5324.]

Violation of the statute was made a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment.

Briefly stated, the material facts, which are uncontro- verted, are as follows: The defendant resided in the city of Chicago, where he was engaged in the general merchandise business, but much of his time was spent in the state of Michigan, soliciting orders for groceries and other merchandise to be shipped from his Chicago store. Duplicates of the orders secured were mailed by him to his manager in Chicago, and goods corresponding to the orders were shipped in carload lots from the Chicago store, consigned to the defendant at St. Joseph and other points in Berrien county, Michigan. Upon the arrival of the cars at St. Joseph the goods were delivered to the customers by draymen employed by the defendant, who filled the orders at the car by checking from the original orders, there being no identifying marks on the packages, except as to their contents. Customers living at a distance received notice by mail of the arrival of the cars, and called or sent for their goods. If for any reason any orders were undelivered, the goods corresponding to such orders were returned to the Chicago store, or placed in a storeroom which the defendant hired in Benton Harbor, Michigan, and there is some evidence tending to show that occasional sales were made by the defendant from the storeroom and from the car without previous solicitation.

Upon the above facts the trial court charged the jury as follows:

'In this case it is claimed by the defendant that he was engaged in interstate commerce, and that he was protected by the interstate commerce law.

'Now, it is true that a wholesale merchant or grocer, in the city of Chicago, for instance, can solicit orders through an agent in this state, and he can send an agent here...