City of Lee's Summit v. Jewel Tea Co.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | 3960. |
| Citation | 217 F. 965 |
| Parties | CITY OF LEE'S SUMMIT et al. v. JEWEL TEA CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
E. S Bennett, of Lee's Summit, Mo., and Pence & Thayer, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.
L. E Durham, of Kansas City, Mo. (Cowherd, Ingraham, Durham & Morse, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HOOK and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree on final hearing enjoining the city of Lee's Summit, Mo., and its mayor and city marshal, from enforcing against the Jewel Tea Company a municipal ordinance imposing a license charge of $1 per day upon vendors of teas, coffees, etc., 'selling at retail from wagon or other vehicle,' and a like sum where the articles are sold 'by solicitor taking orders for future delivery. ' The trail court held that the business of the company was in interstate commerce and therefore not subject to the ordinance. (D.C.) 189 F. 280; (D.C.) 198 F. 532.
The Jewel Tea Company is an Illinois merchandising corporation, with headquarters at Chicago, in that state. It employed an agent residing in Missouri. The agent canvassed from house to house in Lee's Summit for orders for future delivery of teas and coffees. The orders taken were mostly for half-pound and pound lots. He forwarded the orders to the company at Chicago, giving the quantities only, not the names of the purchasers. At Chicago the company put up the goods in small packages according to the quantities ordered, so as to permit of exact delivery to each purchaser without breaking. On each package was marked its price, but not the name of the purchaser. The packages were then put into a large box or other receptacle and shipped by freight to Lee's Summit; the company being both consignor and consignee. When the shipment arrived at Lee's Summit, the agent received it, opened the box or container, had it hauled around on a dray, delivered the packages unopened to those who had given the orders, and collected payment for them on delivery. At the same time he solicited further orders. He made the rounds about twice each month, and by other canvassing endeavored to increase the trade. The agent remitted the moneys collected to the company at Chicago. He had no financial interest in the business, save his salary, which was paid from that city. Occasionally a purchaser would refuse to accept and pay. In such case the package intended for him was sent to a branch house of the company at Kansas City, Mo., but all the goods delivered in Lee's Summit were shipped directly there from Chicago in the way described.
These facts were undisputed, and they show that the company was engaged in interstate commerce. In a case between the same company and the city of Carthage, Mo., involving substantially the same business method, the Supreme Court of that state very recently so decided. Jewel Tea Co. v City of Carthage (Mo.) 165 S.W. 743. Answers to the various arguments of appellants to the contrary may also be found in Stewart v. Michigan, 232 U.S. 665, 34 Sup.Ct. 476, 58 L.Ed. 786; Crenshaw v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landon v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Kansas
... ... [242 F. 660] ... John H ... Atwood, of Kansas City, Mo., Robert Stone, of Topeka, Kan., ... Chester I. Long, of Wichita, ... 568, 35 Sup.Ct. 419, 59 L.Ed. 721; ... City of Lee's Summit v. Jewell Co., 217 F. 965, ... 133 C.C.A. 637 ... (9) ... v. Evans (D.C.) 216 F. 791; ... City Lee Summit v. Jewel Co., 217 F. 965, 133 C.C.A ... 637. Nor is the business carried on by ... ...
-
Campbell Baking Co. v. City of Harrisonville, Mo.
...U. S. 124, 30 S. Ct. 649, 54 L. Ed. 965, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 264; Jewel Tea Co. v. Lee's Summit, Mo. (D. C.) 198 F. 532, affirmed (C. C. A. 8) 217 F. 965. Here resort must be had to the equal protection guaranty of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion concedes, as it must, that so......
-
City of Waseca v. Braun
...company was directly involved, as follows: Jewel Tea Co. Inc. v. City of Camden, 171 S.C. 353, 172 S.E. 307;City of Lee's Summit v. Jewel Tea Co., 8 Cir., 217 F. 965;Jewel Tea Co. v. City of Carthage, 257 Mo. 383, 165 S.W. 743; and City of Anniston v. Jewel Tea Co., 18 Ala.App. 4, 88 So. 35......
-
City of Waseca v. Braun
... ... The facts as established thereby are as ... follows: Defendant is employed by the Jewel Tea Company, an ... Illinois corporation there domiciled but having and ... maintaining a branch ... Jewel Tea Co. Inc. v. City of Camden, 171 S.C. 353, ... 172 S.E. 307; City of Lee's Summit v. Jewel Tea Co., ... 8 Cir., 217 F. 965; Jewel Tea Co. v. City of ... Carthage, 257 Mo. 383, 165 ... ...