Ballou v. State
| Citation | 87 Ala. 144,6 So. 393 |
| Parties | BALLOU ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1889 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Geneva county, J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.
W D. Roberts, for appellants.
W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charges the defendants with a violation of the revenue law by engaging in or carrying on the business of peddling, in a wagon drawn by two horses, without a license. The evidence shows the facts to be as follows: The only article sold or delivered by the defendants was a stove called the "Wrought-Iron Range Stove," which was manufactured in St. Louis, Mo., by a company having their principal place of business in that city. The stoves were shipped from St. Louis by the car-load, to Caryville, Fla and kept in a warehouse for delivery as sales were made. The defendants were agents of the company, one being the managing agent, having his place of business in Geneva, in this state, and the others salesmen and delivery men. The following was the mode of doing business: The managing agent sent salesmen, who would go through the country, carrying a sample stove in a two-horse wagon, from house to house, and procure orders for stoves. When an order was obtained, the purchaser gave a note for $65, conditioned to be void if the stove was not delivered in 30 days. The orders and notes were delivered to the managing agent, who, within 20 or 30 days thereafter, would send other men with stoves in two-horse wagons, to deliver on the orders, and put them up for the purchasers. These men took the notes with them to give the purchaser an opportunity to pay the cash price of $60, if he preferred, which he had the option to do. The sample stove was not sold by the salesman, but was usually left, on his return from a trip to Geneva, for the delivery man at the last house at which he procured an order, who sometimes, by agreement with the purchaser, would put it up, instead of the stove carried for that purpose.
On these facts the question is, were the defendants required to take out a license as peddlers under subdivision 31, § 629, Code 1886. There being nothing in the context indicating a different intention, the term "peddler" must be construed in its ordinary popular sense. In Randolph v Yellowstone Kit, 83 Ala. 474, 3 South. Rep. 706, its popular signification is said to be "a small retail dealer, who, carrying his merchandise with him, travels from house to house, or from place to place, either on foot or on horseback, or in a vehicle drawn by one or more animals, exposing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Crenshaw v. State
-
Ex parte Byles
...within the act. 12 Cush. 393; 114 Mass. 267; 114 Mass. 267; 12 Cush. 493-6; 20 S.E. 544; 47 F. 539; 8 P. 865; 39 N.W. 191; 28 Id. 13; 6 So. 393; 132 Ill. 380; 55 N.J.L. 522; 69 N.H. 424; 50 La. An. 574; S.W. 31; 167 Ind. 502; 84 Ga. 754; 105 Id. 457. 2. The act is in conflict with art. 1, §......
-
Israels v. State
...48 L.R.A. 99, citing Commonwealth v. Ober, 66 Mass. (12 Cush.) 493, 495; State v. Fetterer, 32 A. 394, 395, 65 Conn. 287; Ballou v. State, 6 So. 393, 87 Ala. 144; v. Lee, 18 S.E. 713, 714, 113 N.C. 681, 37 Am. St. Rep. 649; State v. Gibbs, 20 S.E. 172, 175, 115 N.C. 700; Wrought-Iron Range ......
-
Singer Sewing Machine Company v. Robert Brickell
...Much must be left to the discretion of the legislature, for exact equality of taxation can never be reached.' And see Ballou v. State, 87 Ala. 144, 146, 6 So. 393. The contention that the statute violates the state Constitution is grounded upon two sections of the Bill of Rights, viz., § 1,......