Talbutt v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Talbutt v. State

44 S.W. 1091, 39 Tex. Crim. 64, 1898 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 63

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 16, 1898

DocketNo. 1638.

StatusPublished

This text of 44 S.W. 1091 (Talbutt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Talbutt v. State, 44 S.W. 1091, 39 Tex. Crim. 64, 1898 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 63 (Tex. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSOU, Judge.

The offense was committed in January, 1898. The punishment was assessed at a fine of $150. The evidence shows that the appellant was representing Cole Bros., who resided in Greencastle, Putnam County, Ind., and who carried on their business at that place. Cole Bros, have not, and never have had, a place of business within the limits of the State of Texas, and appellant is their agent and representative soliciting orders for the placing of lightning rods on houses in Gray-son County, and when the orders are secured they are sent to the place of business of Cole Bros., at Greencastle, Ind. Lightning rods were then made in obedience to said orders, shipped to Texas, and, when required to do so, appellant assisted in placing these lightning rod's at the places desired by the purchasers. For this he collected the money for the sale, or took notes, as the case might be. Without going into any discussion of the matter further than heretofore, we hold that the conviction was erroneous. This seems, under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, to be a tax upon interstate commerce. See Ex Parte Holman, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 255; Brennan v. City of Titusville, 153 U. S., 289; 14 Sup. Ct., 829; Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S., 129; 8 Sup. Ct., 1; Corson v. Maryland, 120 U. S., 502; 7 Sup. Ct., 655; Robbins v. Taxing Dist., 120 U. S., 489; 7 Sup. Ct., 592. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

DAVIDSOU, Judge.

The offense was committed in January, 1898. The punishment was assessed at a fine of $150. The evidence shows that the appellant was representing Cole Bros., who resided in Greencastle, Putnam County, Ind., and who carried on their business at that place. Cole Bros, have not, and never have had, a place of business within the limits of the State of Texas, and appellant is their agent and representative soliciting orders for the placing of lightning rods on houses in Gray-son County, and when the orders are secured they are sent to the place of business of Cole Bros., at Greencastle, Ind. Lightning rods were then made in obedience to said orders, shipped to Texas, and, when required to do so, appellant assisted in placing these lightning rod's at the places desired by the purchasers. For this he collected the money for the sale, or took notes, as the case might be. Without going into any discussion of the matter further than heretofore, we hold that the conviction was erroneous. This seems, under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, to be a tax upon interstate commerce. See Ex Parte Holman, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 255; Brennan v. City of Titusville, 153 U. S., 289; 14 Sup. Ct., 829; Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S., 129; 8 Sup. Ct., 1; Corson v. Maryland, 120 U. S., 502; 7 Sup. Ct., 655; Robbins v. Taxing Dist., 120 U. S., 489; 7 Sup. Ct., 592. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 S.W. 1091, 39 Tex. Crim. 64, 1898 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talbutt-v-state-texcrimapp-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack