Pearson v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Panola county, second district. Hon. W. M. Rogers, Judge. The appellant, Pearson, was convicted for violation of the “local ■option law” in Panola county. The evidence showed that Pearson was the owner of a saloon in Memphis, Tenn., and was accustomed to travel in certain portions of this state, including said county, and solicit orders for whisky, to be shipped in jugs from the saloon in Memphis to the purchasers by express.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Panola county, second district. Hon. W. M. Rogers, Judge. The appellant, Pearson, was convicted for violation of the “local ■option law” in Panola county. The evidence showed that Pearson was the owner of a saloon in Memphis, Tenn., and was accustomed to travel in certain portions of this state, including said county, and solicit orders for whisky, to be shipped in jugs from the saloon in Memphis to the purchasers by express. In the case at bar the defendant, while at Batesville in said county, received from one Still an order for two gallons of whisky to be shipped…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
The sale of the whisky was complete at Memphis, upon delivery to the express company, and the fact that the order for it was taken in Panola county, and that payment for it was received there, did not make the appellant guilty of selling in that county. The point is, where was delivery made ? If the seller was to deliver the whisky in Panola county, before any right accrued to him to claim pay for it, the sale was not complete until delivery at the place of its destination, but, if the delivery was in Memphis to the carrier as the agent of the buyer, the sale was then complete, and the law of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hurley v. City of CorinthMississippi Supreme Court · 1910
- Anglin v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1909
- Dantzler v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1913