Spanish Fork City v. Mortensen

Utah Supreme Court

Spanish Fork City v. Mortensen

7 Utah 33

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJune 15, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 Utah 33 (Spanish Fork City v. Mortensen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spanish Fork City v. Mortensen, 7 Utah 33 (Utah 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Zane, O. J.:

The defendant was found guilty by a justice of the* peace of selling sewing-machines in violation of an ordi--. nance of Spanish Pork City, and convicted and fined.. Prom this judgment he appealed to the district court,, and by it he was again convicted and fined. This is an appeal from the latter judgment. An ordinance' of Spanish Pork City imposes a penalty upon any person who engages in peddling within the city limits without first obtaining a license, under an ordinance that declares all persons selling, or offering to sell, goods from house to house, who use a vehicle, or who carry jewelry to so [34]*34sell, to be first-class peddlers, and declares all other peddlers to be second-class, and requires a license fee in either case. And section 123 of the same ordinance is in the following language: ‘‘There shall be levied .and collected a license for the sundry kinds of business herein specified as follows: For machine or vehicle agents for each company represented, $4 per quarter, or $15 per year.” The right of the city to pass the ordinance is not questioned. The evidence in the record shows that the defendant was the agent of the Provo Book & Stationery Company whose place of business was Provo City; that the defendant used a vehicle, and carried sample machines with him, and sold machines to be afterwards delivered to the purchaser, and that, in some instances, he would sell and deliver the machine that he carried as a sample, and would obtain another machine from the principal to use as a sample; that generally the machine would not be delivered at the time of the bargain, but would be in a short time thereafter, and in other cases the sale would be completed at once by ■delivery. The defendant claims that this amounted to selling by sample, and that no license was required. In one of the cases mentioned the sale is executory. In the other it is executed by the seller at the time of the bargain. The sale is completed in either case by delivery. The court holds that a sale in either way violated the ordinance. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

HendbRSON, J., AndeRSON, J., and BlackbüRN, J., concurred.

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

Zane, O. J.:

The defendant was found guilty by a justice of the* peace of selling sewing-machines in violation of an ordi--. nance of Spanish Pork City, and convicted and fined.. Prom this judgment he appealed to the district court,, and by it he was again convicted and fined. This is an appeal from the latter judgment. An ordinance' of Spanish Pork City imposes a penalty upon any person who engages in peddling within the city limits without first obtaining a license, under an ordinance that declares all persons selling, or offering to sell, goods from house to house, who use a vehicle, or who carry jewelry to so [34]*34sell, to be first-class peddlers, and declares all other peddlers to be second-class, and requires a license fee in either case. And section 123 of the same ordinance is in the following language: ‘‘There shall be levied .and collected a license for the sundry kinds of business herein specified as follows: For machine or vehicle agents for each company represented, $4 per quarter, or $15 per year.” The right of the city to pass the ordinance is not questioned. The evidence in the record shows that the defendant was the agent of the Provo Book & Stationery Company whose place of business was Provo City; that the defendant used a vehicle, and carried sample machines with him, and sold machines to be afterwards delivered to the purchaser, and that, in some instances, he would sell and deliver the machine that he carried as a sample, and would obtain another machine from the principal to use as a sample; that generally the machine would not be delivered at the time of the bargain, but would be in a short time thereafter, and in other cases the sale would be completed at once by ■delivery. The defendant claims that this amounted to selling by sample, and that no license was required. In one of the cases mentioned the sale is executory. In the other it is executed by the seller at the time of the bargain. The sale is completed in either case by delivery. The court holds that a sale in either way violated the ordinance. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

HendbRSON, J., AndeRSON, J., and BlackbüRN, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Utah 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spanish-fork-city-v-mortensen-utah-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack