Kirkpatrick v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia
The Court of Appeals certified to the Supreme Court for decision two questions following, to say: “First. Does section 434 of the Penal Code (1910), properly construed, prohibit an agent of a non-resident dealer, engaged in interstate commerce, from personally soliciting orders in this State for the sale of intoxicating liquors, to be shipped into this State by the non-resident dealer ? “Second.
Read the full summary
The Court of Appeals certified to the Supreme Court for decision two questions following, to say: “First. Does section 434 of the Penal Code (1910), properly construed, prohibit an agent of a non-resident dealer, engaged in interstate commerce, from personally soliciting orders in this State for the sale of intoxicating liquors, to be shipped into this State by the non-resident dealer ? “Second. If this section oe so construed as to prohibit such solicitation by such agent of orders for the sale of intoxicating liquors, is it valid and enforceable, so far as solicitation for interstate sales…
1Opinion of the CourtAtkinson, J.
1. The code section designated in the first question declares: “If any person shall contract to sell, take orders for, or solicit, personally or by agent, the sale of spirituous, malt, or intoxicating liquors in any county of this State, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” The express language thus employed requires no reinforcement of argument to show a legislative design to prohibit in this State the making of contracts for the sale of the articles mentioned, or the taking or soliciting of orders for them. Agents for dealers are not excepted, and the statute has been held applicable to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Delamater v. South DakotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Crigler v. SheplerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
- Walker v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- R. M. Rose Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Zinn v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel. Black v. DelayeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Matter of Application of AnixterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Kirkpatrick v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913