State v. Agee
| Decision Date | 28 February 1888 |
| Citation | 83 Ala. 110,3 So. 856 |
| Parties | STATE v. AGEE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court, Montgomery county; THOMAS M. ARRINGTON Judge.
W. C Agee, the defendant in this case, was prosecuted in the county court, by complaint and warrant of arrest, on the charge that he "did, after the 15th January, 1888 engage in or carry on the business of an itinerant dealer in fruit trees, vines, shrubs, or plants, without first having paid for and taken out the license required by law for carrying on said business." In that court he was found guilty as charged, and took an appeal to the city court. On the trial in that court it was admitted, as the bill of exceptions states, "that the defendant, after the 15th January, 1888, and before the commencement of this prosecution, sold and offered for sale, in said county of Montgomery, a large number of fruit trees; that said sales were made only by samples, picture-books, and cards, and by exhibited fruit from trees of similar kind; that he traveled about the country in making sales, and acted only as the agent and drummer of and for Franklin, Davis & Co., a partnership doing business in the city of Richmond, Va where also all the partners resided and were citizens; that the defendant had no interest in or title to the trees sold, but sent the order of purchasers by mail to said Franklin, Davis & Co., at Richmond, by whom the orders were filled, and the trees shipped to defendant for delivery, where the purchasers were small, and in some instances to the purchasers;" and that the defendant had never obtained a license for selling fruit trees, etc. On these facts, the court charged the jury, on the request of the defendant, "that the statute under which this prosecution is brought is unconstitutional, as being a regulation of commerce between the states; and that they must find the defendant not guilty, if they believed the evidence." To this charge an exception was reserved by the solicitor, in the name of the state.
Thos. N. McClellan, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Sayre, Stringfellow & Le Grand, for appellee.
The defendant was indicted and found guilty of carrying on the business of an "itinerant dealer in fruit trees, vines shrubs, or plants," without a license, after the act of January 15, 1887, which exacts a license of $50 from dealers of this class. Acts 1886-87, p. 36, § 5, subd. 10. The city court decided the act to be unconstitutional, as an attempted regulation of commerce between the states. The present appeal is taken by the state, under the provisions of section 4515, Code 1886, which reads as follows: "In all criminal cases, when the act of the legislature under which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Hall Auto Co.
... ... It ... has been established, that a foreign corporation is subject ... to suit within the state only if it is doing business within ... the jurisdiction in such manner and to such extent as that ... its actual corporate presence there, where ... which process must be served, or (3) those of due process, ... equal protection, and interstate commerce. State v ... Agee, 83 Ala. 110, 3 So. 856; Stratford v. City ... Council of Montgomery, 110 Ala. 619, 20 So. 127; ... Beard v. Union & American Publishing Co., 71 ... ...
-
State v. Smithson
... ... otherwise without paying a license, and whether domestic ... commerce is taxed or licensed would make no difference ... Robbins v. Taxing Dist., 120 U.S. 497; Corson v ... Maryland, 120 U.S. 502; State v. Pratt, 59 Vt ... 590; Hardware Co. v. Guire, 2 So. 592; State v ... Agee, 3 So. 856; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat ... 419; Bowman v. Railroad, 125 U.S. 465. (4) The right ... to bring into one state from another an article of commerce ... is a vested right, and no state can tax it. Lot v ... Hinson, 8 Wall. 150; Bowman v. Railroad, 125 ... U.S. 501; Brown v ... ...
-
City of Roanoke v. Stewart Grocery Co.
...155 Ala. 154, 46 So. 750; McCarter v. City of Florence, 213 Ala. 367, 104 So. 806; Ex parte Murray, 93 Ala. 78, 8 So. 868; State v. Agee, 83 Ala. 110, 3 So. 856; Brown Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 444, 6 L.Ed. 678; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275, 278, 23 L.Ed. 347; Robbins v. Shelby County Tax......
-
Stratford v. City Council of Montgomery
... ... C. Tarver, as recorder of the ... city of Montgomery and ex officio a justice of the peace in ... and for the county of Montgomery, and state of Alabama, ... against the defendant. The said judgment rendered on the 3d ... day of January for $50, besides $3 for the costs of suit, for ... interstate business, and still be a "broker," ... without becoming liable to the tax. We said, commenting on ... Robbins' Case, in State v. Agee, 83 Ala. 110, 3 ... So. 856, that, whatever might be our views as to the ... soundness of that decision, "it involves a judicial ... construction ... ...