Ballard v. Wrought Iron Range Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Ballard v. Wrought Iron Range Co.

81 So. 429, 144 La. 931, 1919 La. LEXIS 1651

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 31, 1919

DocketNo. 23286

StatusPublished

This text of 81 So. 429 (Ballard v. Wrought Iron Range Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ballard v. Wrought Iron Range Co., 81 So. 429, 144 La. 931, 1919 La. LEXIS 1651 (La. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PROVOSTX, J.

The defendant company, a Missouri corporation domiciled in Missouri, obtains orders for ranges through salaried drummers who travel in this state (taking a sample range along with them), and ships the ranges in carload lots to a salaried agent in this state who causes them to be delivered in the unbroken package to the purchasers. Defendant is sued for a license. Plaintiff admits that in Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389, 33 Sup. Ct. 294, 57 L. Ed. 565, "the same defendant was before the courts for doing this business which it apparently defended on the same ground and was discharged.” The fact of the matter is that changing the name of Arkansas to Louisiana, and changing the names of the agents, the statement of facts contained in that case could be made to serve word for word for this case. Plaintiff’s learned counsel invites this court to review that decision. But many others along the same line would also have to be reviewed and overruled, notably Pegues v. Ray, 50 La. Ann. 574, 23 South. 904, which in its legal features is undistinguishable from the present case. The business is “interstate commerce” and cannot be taxed by the state.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PROVOSTX, J.

The defendant company, a Missouri corporation domiciled in Missouri, obtains orders for ranges through salaried drummers who travel in this state (taking a sample range along with them), and ships the ranges in carload lots to a salaried agent in this state who causes them to be delivered in the unbroken package to the purchasers. Defendant is sued for a license. Plaintiff admits that in Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389, 33 Sup. Ct. 294, 57 L. Ed. 565, "the same defendant was before the courts for doing this business which it apparently defended on the same ground and was discharged.” The fact of the matter is that changing the name of Arkansas to Louisiana, and changing the names of the agents, the statement of facts contained in that case could be made to serve word for word for this case. Plaintiff’s learned counsel invites this court to review that decision. But many others along the same line would also have to be reviewed and overruled, notably Pegues v. Ray, 50 La. Ann. 574, 23 South. 904, which in its legal features is undistinguishable from the present case. The business is “interstate commerce” and cannot be taxed by the state.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 429, 144 La. 931, 1919 La. LEXIS 1651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-wrought-iron-range-co-la-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack