Davis v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Decision Date | 22 March 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 184,184 |
Parties | J. G. DAVIS, Plff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. John Winston Read and Thomas J. Christian for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Christopher B. Garnett, and Mr. John Garland Pollard, Attorney General of Virginia, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of peddling without a license. His defense was that, if applied to his dealings, the Virginia law would interfere with commerce among the states, contrary to article I., § 8 of the Constitution. The facts are as follows. The Empire Art Institute of New York sent soliciting agents to Virginia, who took orders on a blank furnished by the company. These blanks stated that the company would place a limited number of a 'new Aquarell Portrair' 'at cost of material, India Ink $1.98 and Water Color $3.96,' and the one exhibited went on: On receipt of such order the company shipped the portrait when prepared, and, in a separate parcel, frames suitable for them, to an agent, in this case the plaintiff in error. The latter put the pictures into appropriate frames and then delivered the portraits, offering the customer a choice of three different styles of frames, the customer taking one or not, at his will.
The court below thought that the purchase of the frames was to be regarded as a separate transaction, occurring wholly in Virginia. Whether or not this was its technical aspect as an executed contract, it often has been pointed out that commerce among the states is a practical, not a technical, conception. The preliminary contract bound the company to furnish a chance to take a frame with the portrait. Obviously it was contemplated that the frames would be sent from New York as well as the pictures, as in practice they were, and although the bargain was not complete until the company's offer was accepted in Virginia, the furnishing of the opportunity was a part of the interstate transaction. From the point of view...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel Battle v. B. D. Bailey & Sons, Inc.
...Arkansas, 227 U.S. 401, 33 S.Ct. 298, 57 L.Ed. 569; Stewart v. Michigan, 232 U.S. 665, 34 S.Ct. 476, 58 L.Ed. 786; Davis v. Virginia, 236 U.S. 697, 35 S.Ct. 479, 59 L.Ed. 795; Cheney Brothers Company v. Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 147, 38 S.Ct. 295, 62 L.Ed. 632; Real Silk, Hosiery Mills v. Por......
-
Landon v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Kansas
... ... 159, 51 L.Ed. 295; Stewart v. Michigan, 232 U.S ... 665, 34 Sup.Ct. 476, 58 L.Ed. 786; Davis v ... Virginia, 236 U.S. 697, 35 Sup.Ct. 479, 59 L.Ed. 795; ... Grand Union Tea Co. v. Evans ... ...
-
Goldrick v. Coal Mining Co
...Arkansas, 227 U.S. 401, 33 S.Ct. 298, 57 L.Ed. 569; Stewart v. Michigan, 232 U.S. 665, 34 S.Ct. 476, 58 L.Ed. 786; Davis v. Virginia, 236 U.S. 697, 35 S.Ct. 479, 59 L.Ed. 795; Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. Portland, 268 U.S. 325, 45 S.Ct. 525, 69 L.Ed. 982. Read in their proper historical sett......
-
Memphis Steam Laundry Cleaner v. Stone
...57 L.Ed. 569; Stewart v. People of State of Michigan, 1914, 232 U.S. 665, 34 S.Ct. 476, 58 L.Ed. 786; Davis v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1915, 236 U.S. 697, 35 S.Ct. 479, 59 L.Ed. 795; Cheney Bros. Co. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1918, 246 U.S. 147, 38 S.Ct. 295, 62 L.Ed. 632; Real Si......