State v. Coop
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Buchanan, J., Orangeburg, January, 1898. Indictment in magistrate court against C. E. Coop for hawking and peddling. Defendant convicted and appeals. Appeal dismissed, and he then appeals to this Court. cites: Is the defendant a hawker and peddler: Crim.
Read the full summary
Before Buchanan, J., Orangeburg, January, 1898. Indictment in magistrate court against C. E. Coop for hawking and peddling. Defendant convicted and appeals. Appeal dismissed, and he then appeals to this Court. cites: Is the defendant a hawker and peddler: Crim. Code, 294; 16 Stat., 407; 1 McM., 40; 41 S. C., 211; 49 S. C., 527; 75 la., 74; 114 Mass., 267. Is the act unconstitutional: 120 U. S., 489; 39 Kan., 764; 137 Ill., 534; 39 S. W. R., 1; 133 Pa., 284; 153 U. S., 289. (oral argument).
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The defendant was tried and convicted before a magistrate for selling picture frames without a license. The “Case” contains the following agreed statement of facts, to wit: “The Chicago Portrait Company is a corporation of the State of Illinois, its place of business being in the city of Chicago, in the said State, engaged in the business of making portraits in oil, India ink, water color, and pastel, from photographs. That in the prosecution of its business, the said company has agents traveling in this and other States, who solicit…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Dozier v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
- State v. LooneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- State v. IveySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1906
- Chicago Portrait Co. v. Mayor of MaconU.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia · 1899
- State v. IveySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1906