Davis v. Virginia

Davis v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Davis v. Virginia, 236 U.S. 697 (1915)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: March 22, 1915
Docket: No. 184
Judges: Holmes
Citations: 236 U.S. 69735 S. Ct. 47959 L. Ed. 7951915 U.S. LEXIS 1712

Syllabus

The business of taking in one State orders for portraits made in another State is interstate commerce, and if the original order contemplates an option on the part of the purchaser to have a frame also sent from the other State, the business is one affair and exempt from imposition of license fee by the State in which the sale is made.

Summary

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Holmes

*698 Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of peddling without a license. His defence was that if- applied to his dealings the Virginia law would interfere with commerce among the States, contrary to Article I, § 8 of the Constitution. The facts are as follows. The Empire Art Institute of New York sent soliciting agents to Virginia who took orders on a blank furnished by the Company. These blanks stated that the Company would place a limited number of a 'new Aquarell Portrait’ at cost of material, India Ink $1.98 and Water Color $3.96/ and the one exhibited went on: "On or about Apr. 10, 1911, we agree to deliver to the holder of this contract a fully finished Ink Portrait —-x-as shown by our salesman. Mrs. T. P. Morrisette agrees to pay $1.98 for the portrait when delivered. We do not compel you to take frames from us but owing to the delicate nature of the work all portraits are delivered in appropriate frames which this ticket entitles you to select at wholesale prices. ’ ’ On receipt of such order the Company shipped the portrait when prepared and, in a separate parcel, frames suitable for them to an agent, in this case the plaintiff in error. The latter put the pictures into appropriate frames and then delivered the portraits, offering the customer a choice of three different styles of frames, the customer taking one or not at his will.

• The court below thought that the purchase of the frames was to be regarded as a separate transaction occurring wholly in Virginia. Whether or not this was its technical aspect as an executed contract, it often has been pointed out that commerce among the States is a practical not a technical conception. The preliminary contract bound the Company to furnish a chance to take a frame with the portrait. Obviously it was contemplated that the frames * would be sent from New York as well as the pictures, as *699 in practice they were, and although the bargain was not complete until the Company’s offer was accepted in Virginia, the furnishing of the opportunity was a part of the interstate transaction. From the point of view of commerce the business was one affair.

Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U. S. 124 .

Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389 .

Browning v. Waycross, 233 U. S. 16, 21 .

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Loudonville Milling Co. v. Davis37 So. 2d 659 (Ala. 1948)
Butterick Co. v. Federal Trade Commission4 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1925)
Materials Research Corp. v. Metron, Inc.312 A.2d 147 (N.J. 1973)
Inter-Island Steam Nav. Co. v. Territory of Hawaii96 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1938)
State ex rel. Battle v. B. D. Bailey & Sons, Inc.146 S.E.2d 686 (W. Va. 1965) · Dissent
Dunston v. City of Norfolk15 S.E.2d 86 (Va. 1941)

Most recent

Ago(Fla. Att'y Gen. Sept. 1, 1983)
Materials Research Corp. v. Metron, Inc.312 A.2d 147 (N.J. 1973)
American President Lines, Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Board3 Cal. App. 3d 587 (1970)
State v. BD Bailey & Sons, Inc.146 S.E.2d 686 (W. Va. 1966)
State ex rel. Battle v. B. D. Bailey & Sons, Inc.146 S.E.2d 686 (W. Va. 1965) · Dissent
Commonwealth v. United States Tobacco Co.15 Pa. D. & C.2d 176 (1957)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Browning v. City of Waycross, 233 U.S. 16 (1914)	162
	Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U.S. 389 (1913)	99
	Dozier v. Alabama, 218 U.S. 124 (1910)	79

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list