State v. Looney
Supreme Court of Missouri
Transferred from St. Lonis Court of Appeals. Both the courts of our State and Federal courts have repeatedly held that where goods are sold by sample or by canvassing in any way and orders are taken which are to be filled by a future delivery of goods not then in the State, but which are shipped in later, and nothing is delivered at the time of sale, then the defendant is not a peddler, and is not required to have a license.
Read the full summary
Transferred from St. Lonis Court of Appeals. Both the courts of our State and Federal courts have repeatedly held that where goods are sold by sample or by canvassing in any way and orders are taken which are to be filled by a future delivery of goods not then in the State, but which are shipped in later, and nothing is delivered at the time of sale, then the defendant is not a peddler, and is not required to have a license. State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 245; Hynes v. Briggs, 41 Fed. 469; Robbins v. Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622; Welton v. State of Missouri, 91 U.…
1Opinion of the Court
*218IN DIVISION TWO'.
GANTT, J.
On February 21, 1905, the prosecuting attorney of Oregon county filed an information, duly verified by affidavit, charging the defendant with going from place to place in said county and selling goods, wares and merchandise, without having'a peddler’s license, or any other legal authority to sell. At the February term, 1905', of the circuit court of said county, the defendant was tried and convicted and his ' punishment assessed at a fine of ten dollars. Within due time and in proper form, he appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and that court has certified…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Welton v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Brown v. HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Woodruff v. ParhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Caldwell v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Jewel Tea Co. v. City of CarthageSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Jewel Tea Co. v. Lee's SummitDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1912
- In Re GilstrapCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- State v. LauridsenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1958
- Rogers v. Union Iron & Foundry Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.