Alfred Dozier v. State of Alabama

Decision Date31 May 1910
Docket NumberNo. 105,105
PartiesALFRED DOZIER, Piff. in Err., v. STATE OF ALABAMA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. A. D. Gash for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Alexander M. Garber

[Argument of Counsel from Page 125 intentionally omitted] and Thomas W. Martin for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from Page 126 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced to a fine on a complaint for breach of an Alabama statute of March 7, 1907. By § 17 of that act a license tax was imposed on persons who did not have a permanent place of business in the state, and also keep picture frames as a part of their stock in trade, if they solicited orders for the enlargement of photographs or pictures of any character, or for picture frames, whether they made charge for such frames or not, or if they sold or disposed of picture frames. The Chicago Crayon Company, having its only place of business in Chicago, and being engaged in the business of making and enlarging portraits from photographs, and in the manufacturing of picture frames, solicited orders in Alabama without paying the license tax. These orders were given in writing for a portrait of the size and kind wanted, specified the price, cash on delivery, and continued: 'I understand that my portrait is to be delivered in an appropriate frame, which this contract entitles me to accept at factory price.' The agent of the company gave back a written acceptance, repeating the other terms of the bargain, and adding: 'All portraits are delivered in appropriate frames, which this contract entitled the purchaser to accept at factory prices,' with particulars purporting to show that these prices were from one third to one half the retail or usual ones. The plaintiff in error, who also had no permanent place of business in Alabama and had paid no license tax, was an agent of the company, who delivered pictures and frames, and collected for them, in pursuance of the agreed plan. The pictures and frames were sent to the agent, and remained the property of the company until paid for and delivered. On these facts the supreme court of Alabama, while admitting that the dealings concerning the pictures were commerce among the states, sustined the conviction, on the ground that the sale of the frames was a wholly local matter. 154 Ala. 83, 129 Am. St. Rep. 51, 46 So. 9.

No doubt it is true that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
105 cases
  • Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 26, 2019
    ...(1913) (state law requiring a foreign corporation actively soliciting sales in State to obtain a license); Dozier v. Alabama , 218 U.S. 124, 127–128, 30 S.Ct. 649, 54 L.Ed. 965 (1910) (licensing requirement on the solicitors of photography enlargement services and frames manufactured out of......
  • State ex rel Battle v. B. D. Bailey & Sons, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • February 23, 1966
    ......Pigg, 217 U.S. 91, 30 S.Ct. 481, 54 L.Ed. 678, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 493; Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U.S. 124, 30 S.Ct. 649, 54 L.Ed. 965, 28 L.R.A., N.S., 264; Rogers v. Arkansas, 227 ......
  • Palmer v. Aeolian Co., 8978.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 18, 1931
    ...commerce is to be determined upon a broad consideration of the substance of the whole transaction. Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U. S. 124, 128, 30 S. Ct. 649, 54 L. Ed. 965, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 264. Such commerce is not confined to transportation, but comprehends all commercial intercourse betwee......
  • Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. of America v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 8, 1914
    ...is it of decisive consequence in this connection where the contract is made or where the title passes. As was said in Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U. S. 124, at page 128, 30 Sup. Ct. 649, at page 650 (54 L. Ed. 965,28 L. R. A. [N. S.] 264): ‘But as was hinted in Rearick v. Penn., 203 U. S. 507, 5......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The internal powers of the Chief Justice: the nineteenth-century legacy.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 154 No. 6, June 2006
    • June 1, 2006
    ...Melville W. Fuller to Oliver Wendell Holmes (May 19, 1910), quoted in FISS, supra note 139, at 23 n.6. The case was Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U.S. 124 (1910). When Holmes produced his opinion, the dissenters declined to file published opinions. Had current practice been followed, the assignmen......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT