State v. Coop
Citation | 30 S.E. 609,52 S.C. 508 |
Parties | STATE. v. COOP. |
Decision Date | 05 July 1898 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Hawkers and Peddlers—Who are.
An agent, in delivering portraits which his principal manufactured under contracts requiring their delivery in frames, sold the frames to the portrait buyers, the option to purchase being given them by the contracts. He did not sell them to others than portrait buyers, or go anywhere to sell them except where he had to deliver portraits. Held, that he was not within Act 1893 (21 St. at Large, p. 407), requiring hawkers and peddlers of goods to pay a license fee.
Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Orangeburg county; O. W. Buchanan, Judge.
C. E. Coop was convicted of selling merchandise without a license, and, his appeal to the circuit court having been dismissed, he appeals. Reversed.
P. H. Nelson, for appellant.
W. St Julien Jervey, for the State.
The defendant was tried and convicted before a magistrate for selling picture frames without a license. The case contains the following agreed statement of facts, to wit:
Exhibit A is as follows: [ .
Exhibit B is as follows:
The defendant appealed to the circuit court. His honor, Judge Buchanan, dismissed the appeal, whereupon the defendant appealed to this court upon the following exceptions: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State v. Looney
...meaning of our statute, counsel for the defendant cites us to two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, State v. Coop, 52 S.C. 508, 30 S.E. 609, City of Laurens v. Elmore, 55 S.C. 477, 33 S.E. 560. In State v. Coop it was held that one who delivers a portrait already sold......
-
State v. Looney
...of our statute, counsel for the defendant cites us to two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, State v. Coop (S. C.) 30 S. E. 609, 41 L. R. A. 501, and City of Laurens v. Ellmore (S. C.) 33 S. E. 560, 45 L. R. A. 249. In State v. Coop it was held that one who delivers a ......
-
State v. Ivet
...in the case of Alexander Bros. v. Greenville County, 49 S. C. 529, 27 S. E. 469, this definition is retained. In State v. Coop, 52 S. C. 511, 30 S. E. 609, 41 L. R. A. 501, the said definition of these terms was retained. Also, in 15 A. and E. Ency., at page 291, this definition is retained......
-
City Of Laurens v. Elmore
...States constitution which confides to congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. This court, in the recent case of State v. Coop, 52 S. C. 508, 30 S. E. 609, held that one who delivers a portrait already sold in a frame, with option to the purchaser to buy a frame, as set out in th......