State v. Wright

Decision Date23 March 1909
Citation100 P. 296,53 Or. 344
PartiesSTATE v. WRIGHT et al.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wasco County; W.L. Bradshaw, Judge.

D.Y Wright and another were convicted and fined for peddling without a license, in violation of Laws 1905, p. 339, c. 206 and they appeal. Reversed.

Arthur C. Lyon and W.H. Wilson, for appellants.

A.M Crawford and Fred W. Wilson, for the State.

BEAN J.

The defendants were arrested for a violation of chapter 206, p. 339, Laws 1905, which provides that any peddler, hawker, or itinerant vendor, who shall peddle, hawk or vend "any stoves, ranges, wagons, carriages, buggies, carts, surreys, or other kinds of four-wheeled or two-wheeled vehicles, or fanning mills or similar goods, wares, or merchandise, within such county," without first having obtained a license therefor, as provided in section 1 of such act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than $300 or more than $500 or imprisoned in the county jail not less than one month or more than one year. The case was submitted to the court below upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that the Spaulding Manufacturing Company is a co-partnership engaged in the manufacture, for sale, of buggies and wagons, at Grinnell, Iowa, and all members of such firm reside in that state. The defendant Wright is a citizen of New York, and Ogan of Pennsylvania, and both were employed, on a salary, by the Spaulding Company to sell in this state buggies manufactured by them. Wright was a traveling solicitor or salesman, and Ogan was the superintendent of the Spaulding Company's business in Oregon. Neither the company nor defendants had a store or permanent place of business in the state, but the company had a few vehicles--not to exceed 15 or 20, outside of those used exclusively as samples--in a storage warehouse in Shaniko, under Ogan's charge. The defendant Wright, in pursuance of his employment, went over the country soliciting orders for vehicles, using for that purpose samples, which he carried with him, and also a catalogue, showing many other styles. When he obtained an order for a buggy, he forwarded or delivered it to Ogan, who looked up the reputation and financial responsibility of the signer, and, if found satisfactory, directed that the order be filled and the rig delivered. If Ogan had no vehicle on hand corresponding to the order, as was frequently the case, he sent it to his principal, at Grinnell, Iowa, and it was filled by sending the vehicle from the factory to Ogan, to be delivered to the purchaser. If, however, he had on hand in the storage warehouse a vehicle corresponding to the order, he directed that it be filled and the rig delivered from such warehouse. In June, 1908, Wright, as representative of the Spaulding Company, called on one F.E. Spoor, at his residence in Wasco county, showed him a sample buggy he had with him, and exhibited to him his catalogue. Spoor selected a vehicle from the catalogue, signed an order therefor, and gave Wright his note for $160, the purchase price. The order was then forwarded by Wright to Ogan, who directed that it be filled from the stock on hand in the warehouse at Shaniko, which was done accordingly. Upon these facts the defendants were both found guilty and adjudged to pay a fine, from which judgment they appeal, insisting that the law under which they were prosecuted is, as applies to them and the business in which they were engaged, void, because it contravenes section 8, art. 1, and section 2, art. 4, and section 1, of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which vests in Congress exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, provides that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, and prohibits any state from making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, and also that such law is in violation of section 20, art. 1, of the Constitution of this state, which provides that no law shall be passed granting to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.

The questions suggested have been exhaustively briefed and argued by the respective counsel, and much learning and ability have been displayed in their discussions, but we do not deem it necessary to consider all of them at this time, because we conclude that the law under which defendants were prosecuted is void, because it is arbitrary and class legislation. It is important to note at the outset that this case does not involve the right of the state to regulate the sale of articles which are, or may be, injurious to the public health or morals, but the question is whether it may arbitrarily require one, who is engaged in peddling any of two or three harmless and useful articles, to pay a large fee and obtain for the privilege a license, and permit peddlers of other articles, whether harmful or not, to do so, without restriction or limitation. In short, the question is whether the state can lawfully thus discriminate in favor of one class of peddlers and against others engaged in substantially the same business, solely because of the articles sold by them, when such articles are in no way dangerous to the health or morals of the community. That the state may under its police powers, license and regulate the business of peddling by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • State v. Clark
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 23 Junio 1981
    ...effect was soon held to extend to rights against adverse discrimination as well as against favoritism. See, e. g., State v. Wright, 53 Or. 344, 100 P. 296 (1909) (reversing a conviction for unlicensed peddling because peddlers of other goods did not require licenses), and its use against di......
  • Anthony v. Veatch
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 30 Junio 1950
    ...... action praying for a declaratory judgment declaring Chapter. 3, Oregon Laws 1949, as adopted by the people of the state of. Oregon through the initiative on November 2, 1948, to be. unconstitutional. . . The defendants are. the ... Fishing Co. v. McGowan, supra, 70 Or. 1, 15, 137 P. 766;. Lewis v. State, 110 Ark. 204, 161 S.W. 154, 155;. State v. Wright, 53 Or. 344, 100 P. 296, 21 L.R.A.,. N.S., 349; 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, § 291, p. 1056. . . In Hume v. ......
  • Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 1 Agosto 2019
    ...for the legislation, a question that included whether the legislation was enacted for a legitimate purpose. See, e.g. , State v. Wright , 53 Or. 344, 349, 100 P. 296 (1909) (a state "may impose a tax on, or require a license from, persons engaged in certain callings or trades, * * * [b]ut t......
  • Carpel v. City of Richmond
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 14 Junio 1934
    ...677, 65 Am.St.Rep. 565; State Whitcom, 122 Wis. 110, 99 N.W. 468; Ex parte Taylor, 35 Nev. 504, 131 Pac. 133; State Wright, 53 Or. 344, 100 Pac. 296, 21 L.R.A.(N.S.) 349. They are, however, against the weight of In In re Watson, 17 S.D. 486, 97 N.W. 463, 2 Ann.Cas. 321, peddlers who sold nu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT