Grand Union Tea Co. v. Evans
| Decision Date | 17 August 1914 |
| Docket Number | 6261. |
| Parties | GRAND UNION TEA CO. v. EVANS, Dist. Atty. of Multnomah County, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Maurice B. Dean, of New York City, and John M. Gearin, of Portland Or., for plaintiff.
Walter H. Evans, of Portland, Or., A. J. Derby, of Hood River, Or and C. W. Mullins, of Astoria, Or., for defendants.
Before GILBERT, Circuit Judge, and WOLVERTON and BEAN, District judges.
This is an application for a preliminary injunction restraining various officers of the state from enforcing or attempting to enforce, as against the plaintiff and its representatives the Oregon Peddlers Law, upon the ground, among others that as applied to the plaintiff, the law constitutes an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. An order to show cause was issued, which was answered by a motion to dismiss.
From the complaint it appears that the plaintiff is a New Jersey corporation engaged in selling goods prepared and manufactured for it by Jones Bros. Company, a New York corporation. The goods, when manufactured, are packed and marked with the label and name of the plaintiff and delivered to it at the factory, from which place they are forwarded by the plaintiff for sale and distribution to various parts of the Union. The plaintiff maintains a store in Portland where a small part of its merchandise is sold at retail over the counter, but the principal part of its business in Oregon is done through solicitors who go regularly from place to place on fixed routes soliciting and taking orders for future delivery. The orders, when taken, are sent to the Portland store by mail, or taken there personally by the solicitors, where they are filled and the goods shipped to or delivered to the solicitors, who deliver the same to the customers and collect the purchase price on their next trip over their respective routes. The agents or solicitors are allowed a certain percentage of the original price as a commission, but are not permitted to sell goods at retail from their wagons or in any other manner than by taking orders for future delivery, and all goods not accepted by customers are returned to the store, and placed in stock for sale over the counter.
The agents or solicitors are, for convenience, divided into five classes: First, those who have given a bond to the company to save it harmless from loss for the value of goods placed in their custody for delivery. Second, those who act on a C.O.D. basis; that is, at the time the goods to fill the orders taken by them are shipped, a bill of lading with draft attached is sent to some local bank where the agent desires receipt of the goods, or sent along with the goods to the local freight office, and the agent is required to pay such draft before receiving possession of the goods. Third, those who send in with the orders taken by them cash or checks to cover the value thereof, less commission. Fourth, those who have established a credit with the company and are not required to pay for goods shipped to fill orders taken by them until they secure a second order. And, fifth, those who have deposited cash with the plaintiff as security for goods shipped to them.
All of the goods shipped to agents to fill orders previously taken are shipped to and addressed to the company in care of the agent and remain the exclusive property of the company until actually delivered to the customers, and all cards, memoranda, or information concerning the customers along the various routes belong to the plaintiff, and the agents or solicitors are required to deliver the same to the plaintiff upon the termination of their relation with it.
The Portland store does not keep a stock of goods on hand with which to fill orders taken by the solicitors, but experience has shown the manager thereof about how many orders will come in each day and each week in the usual course of trade, and in order to fill the continually recurring orders, he will anticipate, by a few days only, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landon v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Kansas
...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 (D.C.) 216 F. 791. (7) time and place at which the title to the goods passes, as between the seller and buyer, is not controlling upon the cha......
-
Fleming v. Alterman
...as are here in proof, and the legal consequences resulting therefrom as it relates to the question of commerce, see Grand Union T. Co. v. Evans, D.C., 216 F. 791; Wholesale Grocers' Association v. Federal Trade Commission, 5 Cir., 277 F. 657; Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers Association......
-
Park City v. Daniels
... ... Michigan, 232 U.S ... 665, 58 L.Ed. 786; Jewel Tea Co. v. Lee's ... Summit, 189 F. 280; Grand Union Tea Co. v. Evans, et ... al., 216 F. 791.) ... Evans, ... Evans and Folland for ... ...
-
Loudonville Milling Co. v. Davis
... ... use alone as they operated under the previously executed ... contract. Grand Union Tea Co. v. Evans, D.C., 216 F ... The ... business did not become intrastate ... ...
-
The demise of regulation in ocean shipping: a study in the evolution of competition policy and the predictive power of microeconomics.
...Alexander Committee Report, fighting ships had already been held illegal under the Sherman Act. See U.S. v. Hamburgh-American S.S. Line, 216 F. 791 (S.D.N.Y. The concerns of the government inquiries were predominantly economic but were seemingly moral as well. The Alexander Committee, for e......