Rogers v. Arkansas

227 U.S. 401, 33 S. Ct. 298, 57 L. Ed. 569, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2312
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 24, 1913
DocketNos. 576 and 577
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 227 U.S. 401 (Rogers v. Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rogers v. Arkansas, 227 U.S. 401, 33 S. Ct. 298, 57 L. Ed. 569, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2312 (1913).

Opinion

*408 Me. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs in error were convicted of peddling buggies in Greene County, Arkansas, without having paid the license' or privilege tax required by an act of the Arkansas legislature approved April 1, 1909 (Act 97, Acts of 1909, p, 292), regulating the sale of lightning rods, steel stove ranges, clocks, pumps and vehicles in the counties, of that State. (The provisions of such statute are set out in the case just decided, Crenshaw v. Arkansas.) The Supreme. Court of Arkansas affirmed the judgments upon the authority of Crenshaw v. State, 95 Arkansas, 464 (144 S. W. Rep. 211), and the cases are here upon writ of error.

The cases were, submitted upon dn agreed statement of facts, the gist of which is that the Spaulding Manufacturing Company, a partnership, with its principal place of business and factory- at Grinnell, Iowa, manufactures buggies and automobiles which are sold directly to the consumers throughout the United States. It has no permanent place of business ,in Arkansas, but sends a force of salesmen or canvassers, in charge of a superintendent, into Greene and other counties of Arkansas, who travel about exhibiting their sample buggies and taking orders for future delivery. Where orders are taken, a memorandum is signed by the purchaser, stipulating for the delivery of the vehicle within a certain time, and a note for the purchase price is secured. The orders are turned over to the superintendent, who, if he finds the financial responsibility .of the customers satisfactory, transmits the orders to an agent of the company at Memphis, Tennessee, where vehicles of the company of various grades and kinds are stored. Vehicles to fill the orders are selected, tagged with the name of the purchaser, and shipped in car-load lots to a place near where they are to be delivered, consigned to the company. An employé of the company, usually *409 a different person from the'salesman, called a deliveryman, receives the vehicles and delivers them to the respective purchasers, no storage house being maintained at that point. It was further agreed that no vehicles, save the samples, which are never sold, are brought into or stored n Arkansas, except for the purpose of delivery upon orders previously taken; and no vehicles are sold other than upon orders taken before they are brought into the State. The plaintiffs in error were salesmen and transacted the business above described.

The manner in which the business of soliciting orders for and delivering vehicles was done by the Spaulding Manufacturing Company, differs in no practical or material particular from that employed by the Wrought Iron Range Company in the case just decided (Crenshaw v. Arkansas). In fact, the only difference is that the ranges were shipped to the company, bearing no marks to identify the purchasers, and were delivered to the purchasers by the deliverymen without distinction, while the vehicles were tagged at Memphis and upon arrival in Arkansas were delivered by the deliverymen to the purchasers whose names appeared upon the tags attached to the vehicles. This is merely a matter of detail in the manner in which the business is conducted and does not affect its character. The decision in Crenshaw v. Arkansas, ante, p. 389, has dealt with precisely the same statute and substantially the same facts and controls the present cases.

The judgments of the Supreme Court of Arkansas must therefore be reversed and the cases remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

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

Related

State v. BD Bailey & Sons, Inc.
146 S.E.2d 686 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1966)
State ex rel. Battle v. B. D. Bailey & Sons, Inc.
146 S.E.2d 686 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1965)
Commonwealth v. United States Tobacco Co.
15 Pa. D. & C.2d 176 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1957)
Bossert v. City of Okmulgee
1953 OK CR 107 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1953)
Memphis Steam Laundry Cleaner, Inc. v. Stone
342 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 1952)
Breard v. Alexandria
341 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court, 1951)
Breard v. City of Alexandria
62 Ohio Law. Abs. 210 (Supreme Court, 1951)
Nicholson v. City of Forrest City
228 S.W.2d 53 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1950)
McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co.
309 U.S. 33 (Supreme Court, 1940)
City of Waseca v. Braun
288 N.W. 229 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1939)
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Manion
100 S.W.2d 672 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1937)
State v. Paramount Publix Corporation
152 So. 534 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1933)
Richard Young Co. v. Meyer-Rudolph Shoe Co.
261 Ill. App. 327 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1931)
Jell-O Co. v. Brown
3 F. Supp. 132 (W.D. Washington, 1926)
Courtney v. Fort Smith
268 S.W. 854 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1925)
Crawford v. Louisville Silo & Tank Co.
265 S.W. 355 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1924)
Wilk v. City of Bartow
97 So. 307 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Commonwealth
139 N.E. 158 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Wagner v. City of Covington
251 U.S. 95 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Cheney Bros. Co. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
246 U.S. 147 (Supreme Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 U.S. 401, 33 S. Ct. 298, 57 L. Ed. 569, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-arkansas-scotus-1913.