100 So. 83 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1924
To our mind, the principles involved are not distinguishable from those announced in Cheney Bros. Co. et al. v. Com. of Mass.,
"Of course this is a domestic business — inducing one local merchant [customer] to buy a particular class of goods from another — and may be taxed by the state [city], regardless of the motive with which it is conducted."
See Dalton Add. Machine Co. v. Va.,
The questions involved in this appeal do not turn upon the bona fides of the contract between plaintiff and the B. R., L. P. Co., the local dealer, nor as to the title to the goods while in the possession of the local dealer. Neither is the question of the number of sales involved. Under the evidence the plaintiff contracted with the local dealer and rendered a local service in the sale of the plaintiff's product which, in the hands of the B. R., L. P. Co., were not protected by the interstate commerce laws of the United States.
Under the evidence in this case the "Hoover salesmen," as they are called, were employed and supervised by the plaintiff's "district manager of sales," they were paid for their services by plaintiff, were not a part of the organization of the B. R., L. P. Co., their only duty being to resell for the B. R., L. P. Co., plaintiff's dealer in Birmingham, all machines and attachments sold by plaintiff to the B. R., L. P. Co. as was the plaintiff's obligation under section 7 of its contract. The sale of the machines to the B. R., L. P. Co. was interstate commerce. Their resale by plaintiff through the "Hoover salesmen" was domestic. It is manifest that if the right here insisted upon by counsel for appellee should obtain, "all lines of demarcation between national and state authority would become obliterated." Browning v. Waycross,
The court erred in its judgment. The judgment is reversed, and a judgment will here be rendered in favor of the defendant in the court below.
Reversed and rendered. *663