In re Spain

47 F. 208, 14 L.R.A. 97, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1410
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina·Decided July 3, 1891·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Bond, J.

The above-named parties were employed by Gately & Conroy, manufacturers and dealers in agents’ specialties, to sell their goods, which consisted of lamps, lamp-shades, casters, lambrequins, and every variety of household goods. Gately & Conroy were citizens of West Virginia, and their manufactory was at Charleston in that state. The petitioners, in pursuit of their business, reached Raleigh, N. C., and proceeded to sell the goods of Gately & Conroy on the installment plan, by samples. Their method was to carry samples from door to door, and, if they found anything exhibited was wanted by the householder, the householder or purchaser ordered it by written order direct from the manufacturers at Charleston, W. Va. No sample in the hands of the petitioners was ever sold. When the purchasers’ orders readied Charleston the variety of household articles were all packed in one or more boxes, and were consigned to petitioners, to be by them delivered. Upon delivery the purchaser signed another, contract with the manufacturers, respecting future payments, which was forwarded to them at Charleston. The form of the order and agreement to pay' on the installment plan is here inserted:

[209] Date..................189..

Subscriber..................

Address.....................

Article......................

Price.......................

Delivered............. 189..

Amount paid................

Agent.......................

Place...........................Date........189..

This is to certify that I have this day ordered from Gately & Conroy, through their agent.......... ____one......................................... to be delivered.................................

Signed...........................................

Address..........................................

Occupation.......................................

Hote. All canvassing required to be done by sample, and above spaces filled.

Collect..............................................................................-.................................................................................

Ho agreement recognized that is not contained in this contract.

For the sum of $-, to be paid by me, the undersigned, Gately & Conroy have this day sold and delivered to me the following chattels: * * * I have paid on account of said purchase price the sum of $-cash, and I am to pay the balance as follows: $-each and every-until the full amount is paid. To secure deferred payments I hereby relinquish unto the said Gately & Conroy all my right, title, and ownership in and to said chattels, to have and to hold the same until said indebtedness is paid; and in consideration that I will meet said payments promptly, and will safely keep said chattels, and use the same with care at-, and that I will not remove the same therefrom, without their knowledge and consent first obtained, the said Gately & Conroy hereby permit me to hold said chattels for them, and to enjoy the use of the same, while in my possession, on the following conditions: If I fail to promptly pay any one of said deferred payments when the same become due, or if I misuse said chattels, or remove, or attempt to remove, the same, or any part thereof, from said location, or in ease of the seizure of the same by process of law, or in caso the said Gately & Conroy have, in their opinion, good reason to fear for the safety of their interest in said chattels, the said Gately & Conroy are to have, and are hereby conceded, the right to take said chattels back into their possession, without previous demand, and without legal writ; and for that purpose I hereby give them or their agents the authority to enter my premises without legal process, at any reasonable hour of the day, and carry said chattels away. It is expressly understood, however, that if, for any of the foregoing reasons, said chattels are retaken by said Gately & Conroy, under the terms of this instrument, the said Gately & Conroy may repair and store the same at my expense, and may sell the same within a reasonable time, at private sale or otherwise, in the regular course of business, and pay over to me or my assigns the proceeds of such sale remaining after first deducting therefrom all sums still owing by me on account of tbo above-mentioned deferred payments, together with ail reasonable charges and expenses attending the recovery, repair, storage, and sale of said chattels, (including court costs and attorney’s fees.)

Party’s name in full...................

Home address: I

Ho............................. street.

Post-office.............................

State .................................

Agent................................

Witness our hands and seals this - day of--, 189 — ,

Gatei.y & Conroy. [Seal.]

................... [Seal.]

There is no dispute about the facts. For conducting this business the petitioners were arrested by the authorities of North Carolina, and, being held in custody, have petitioned to be released on habeas corpus, because their arrest and imprisonment are in violation of the constitution [210] of the United States. The charge against the petitioners is that they violated chapter 216, § 24, of the Laws of North Carolina of 1889. Thi3 chapter and section, so far as this case is concerned, are in the words following:

“Every person, a citizen of the United States, authorized to do business in this state, who, as principal or agent, peddles * * * goods, wares, or merchandise, shall pay a license tax as follows: * *

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

In re Spain, 47 F. 208, 14 L.R.A. 97, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1410 (circtednc 1891).

47 F. 208 (In re Spain) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Roanoke v. Stewart Grocery Co.
176 So. 820 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
State v. Eckenrode
127 N.W. 56 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1910)
Ex parte Martin
180 F. 209 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, 1910)
Smith v. Farr
46 Colo. 364 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1909)
Wilcox v. People
46 Colo. 382 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1909)
City of Kinsley v. Dyerly
98 P. 228 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1908)
In re Tinsman
95 F. 648 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1899)
State v. Lichtenstein
28 S.E. 753 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1897)