In re White

• Decision Date: 11 November 1890
• Citation: 43 F. 913
• Parties: In re WHITE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

43 F. 913

In re WHITE.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

November 11, 1890

F. M McClintock, for petitioner.

J. W Sproul, for respondent.

ACHESON J.

The petitioner, Albert H. White, a citizen of the state of Ohio as the agent, and not otherwise, of W. J. Squire, whose residence and place of business is the city of Toledo, Ohio and who is also a citizen of that state, was engaged within the limits of the borough of Union City, in the state of Pennsylvania, in canvassing from house to house for orders for the sale of a book entitled 'The New People's Cyclopedia,' and as such agent took orders in said borough for the sale of the book from the general public,-- that is, from persons other than dealers in books,-- without having taken out a license and paid the fee for doing business, required by the ordinance of the borough, which in terms embraces every person canvassing from house to house in the borough, for the purpose of selling books or soliciting orders therefor from the general public. While so engaged, the petitioner was prosecuted and convicted before a justice of the peace of the borough for a violation of the said ordinance, in not taking out a license and paying the prescribed license fee, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $10 and the costs; and, in default of payment, he was arrested under a writ directing his commitment to the jail of the county of Erie, and he is held in custody by the respondent, a constable of said borough, by virtue of such writ.

It appears that 'The New People's Cyclopedia' is a work for which a copyright has been obtained under the laws of the United States; that the same is published outside the state of Pennsylvania, namely, in the states of New York and Ohio, and is kept for sale at the city of Toledo, Ohio, by the said Squire, the petitioner's employer, to whom all orders taken by the petitioner are sent to be filled, and no deliveries are made by the petitioner, nor is any money for the book received by him. His exclusive business is the soliciting of orders for the book on behalf of his principal Squire, and this is all the petitioner did in the borough of Union City. The petitioner seeks his discharge on the ground that, in so far as the ordinance in question touches him, it is in conflict with the constitution of the United States, and void. In Robbins v. Taxing Dist., 120 U.S. 489, 7 S.Ct. 592; it was held by the supreme court of...