123 Tenn. 556 | Tenn. | 1910
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the criminal court of Hamilton county, on the 1'Oth day of February, 1910, an indictment was found against the defendant, containing the following aver-ments :
“That J. W. Kelly & Company, a corporation, heretofore, on the 10th day of February, 1910,. in the county aforesaid, did unlawfully sell as a beverage, spiritous, vinous, malt, alcoholic, and intoxicating liquors within four miles of a schoolhuose where a school was kept.
“Said sale was made under the following circumstances and conditions, to wit:
“On said date the said J. W. Kelly & Company delivered to the Central of Georgia Railway Company, a common carrier of freight, a package containing five gallons 'Of whisky for shipment to one M. F. Frame in*561 the State of New York, the said M. F. Frame having previously ordered said whisky and having sent the purchase price thereof to the said J. W. Kelly & Company through the United States mail from the State of New York, against the peace and dignity of the State.”
A motion to quash was entered containing four grounds; hut, in the view we take of the case, we need consider only the last, which reads as follows:
“Because said indictment shows on its face that the sale complained of was made by J. W. Kelly & Company in Hamilton county, Tennessee, to M. F. Frame, in the State of New York, pursuant to an order sent from said Frame, in the State of New York, to the defendant, J. W. Kelly & Company, in the State of Tennessee; hence said sale is strictly interstate commerce. And if said act hereinbefore set out should be so construed as to prohibit said interstate sale, then it is void, because in conflict with article 1, section 8, cl. 8, of the constitution of the United States, which provides:
“ ‘Congress shall have power ... to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and among the Indian tribes.’ ”
The case came on for trial on the motion on the 28 d day of July, before the Honerable S. D. McReynolds, Judge, etc., whereupon he sustained the motion and quashed the indictment. From this judgment the State appealed to this court, and has here assigned errors.
The prosecution is based on chapter 1, Acts 1909, the first section of which reads as follows:
*562 “That it shall not hereafter he lawful for any person to sell or tipple intoxicating liquors, including wine, ale, and beer, as a beverage, within four miles of any schoolhouse, public or private, where a school is kept, whether the school be then .in session or not, in this State, and that any one violating the privisons of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine for each offense of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars and imprisonment for a period of not less than thirty days nor more than six months.” ■
The general rule in this State, with regard to the sale of personal property, is that it is complete and the title passes as soon as the parties have agreed upon the terms, and that delivery is not essential to the passing of title. Shaw v. Smith, 9 Yerg., 97; Potter v. Coward, Meigs, 22; Miller v. Koger, 9 Humph, 231, 236; Shaddon v. Knott, 2 Swan, 358, 361-364, 58 Am. Dec., 63; Broyles v. Lowrey, 2 Sneed, 23; Fitzpatrick v. Fain, 3 Cold., 15, 19; Bond v. Greenwald, 4 Heisk., 460, 463; Railroad v. Ford, 11 Heisk., 388, 390; Spurlock v. Gill, 3 Tenn. Cas., 43, 45; Mayberry v. Mill Co., 112 Tenn., 568, 85 S. W., 401; Hardwick v. Can Co., 113 Tenn., 676, 88 S. W., 797. Of course, delivery may be made an express condition, and, under such a contract, the title does not pass until the delivery is made. Barker v. Reagan, 4 Heisk., 590; Barker v. Freeland, 91 Tenn., 112, 117, 18 S. W., 60. ’ So, prepayment of the purchase price may be made a condition with like effect. Harding v. Metz, 1 Tenn. Ch., 610. Likewise, when the
So, in the- case stated in the indictment, the sale became complete when the goods were delivered to the Central of Georgia Railway Company, a common carrier of freight, for shipment to M. P. Frame, in the State of New York. The carrier was then charged with the transportation of the goods. Bennett v. American Express Co., 83 Me., 236, 22 Atl., 159, 13 L. R. A., 33, 23 Am. St. Rep., 774, and note. When a commodity has been delivered to a common carrier to be transported on a continuous voyage or trip to a point beyond the limits of the State where delivered, the character of interstate of foreign commerce attaches. Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S., 517, 6 Sup. Ct., 475, 29 L. Ed., 715; General Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U. S., 229, 28 Sup. Ct., 475, 52 L. Ed., 754; The Daniel Ball v. United States, 10 Wall., 557, 566, 19 L. Ed., 999; Ex parte Koehler (C. C.), 30 Fed., 867, 869; In re Greene (C. C.), 52 Fed., 113; Houston Direct Navigation Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 89 Tex., 1, 32 S. W., 889, 30 L. R. A., 713, 59 Am. St. Rep., 17. And compare Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 206 U. S., 129, 27 Sup. Ct., 606, 51 L. Ed., 987; Vance v. Van-
It thus appears that the act by which the acceptance on the part of J. W. Kelly & Co. of the offer made by M. P. Frame was manifested, and which closed the contract, placed the goods — that is, the five gallons of whis-ky — the subject of the contract, under the protection of the interstate commerce clause of the federal constitution, since, upon the reception of the goods by the railway company for the purpose of transportation to the foreign State, the initial step in that transportation was begun. To hold that the defendants became liable to criminal prosecution for so acting would be equivalent of holding that, although the act performed by them was of' a kind sanctioned by the federal constitution, yet they were not personally entitled to protection thereunder, and this would be of itself a violation by the court of that constitution.
It is true, as insisted by the State, that it has the right to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors within its borders. Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S., 1, 9 Sup. Ct., 6, 32 L. Ed., 346; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall., 129, 21 L. Ed., 929; Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S., 25, 24 L. Ed., 989; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U.. S., 205, 5 Sup. Ct., 8, 97, 28 L. Ed., 629; Schmidt v. Cobb, 119 U. S., 286, 7 Sup. Ct., 1373, 30 L. Ed., 321; note to Rothermel v. Meyerle, 9 L. R. A., 366, and cases cited; Woollen & Thornton on the Law of Intoxicating Liquors, secs. 92 to 116, and authorities cited. The right exists under the
After a very extended and careful investigation of the case, we are unable to find any ground on which to sustain the indictment. The act on which it is based, chapter 1 of the Acts of 1909, does not cover such a case as stated in the indictment, or if, by any construction, it
Rehearing
ON REHEARING.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case was decided and an opinion handed down at a former day of the term. A very earnest petition to rehear has been filed by the learned attorney-general, in which some new authorities are cited and some additional arguments made in support of the indictment. We shall now refer to such of these as we think require special notice.
In State v. Groves, 121 N. C. 632, 28 S. E. 403, cited in the petition, the supreme court of North Carolina reached a different conclusion, upon a state of facts closely similar. The two cases differ principally in the court’s view as to the point of time when the contract was complete. In State v. droves it is said: '“The order of Morris to the defendant was a proposition to buy, and the acceptance of this order constituted a contract/ a sale by the defendant to Morris.” In the case at bar, we placed the closing of the contract at the point when the goods were delivered to the carrier for the shipment to the party in New York. The North Carolina court placed the closing of the contract one step 'further back. We think, as applied to a case in which goods are ordered, this is opposed, not only to former decisions of that court (Railroad v. Barnes, 104 N. C., 25, 10 S. E., 83, 5 L. R. A., 611; Ober v. Smith 78 N. C., 313, and
We have not overlooked the fact that in State v. Groves, supra, after the words we have quoted from that opinion, there is added: “And the delivery by the defendant of the keg of whisky to the railroad at its station for shipment to Morris was a delivery, and made Morris the owner of the whisky.” This was an immaterial statement, if the contract was closed by the previous uncommunicated mental assent. The whole passage is: “The order of Morris to the defendant was a proposition to buy, and the acceptance of this order constituted a contract — a sale by the defendant to Morris. Pruden v. Railroad, at this term. And the delivery by the defendant of the keg of whisky to the railroad •at its station for shipment to Morris was a delivery and made Morris the owner of the whisky. Railroad v. Barnes, 104 N. C., 25 [10 S. E., 83, 5 L. R. A., 611]. The railroad, being in such cases the agent of the consignee, a delivery to the railroad was a delivery to Morris.” As we construe the decision, it is that the mere acceptance of the order, the mental assent which
Tredway v. Riley, 32 Neb., 495, 49 N. W., 268, 29 Am. St. Rep., 447, is not in point. In that case it ap-peard the Franz Brewing Company, doing business in Iowa, sold to one Riley, who was a retail liquor dealer in the town of Jackson, State of Nebraska, where it was lawful to sell, a lot of beer at the price of $826.15, and afterwards transferred the account to one Tredway, who instituted suit against Riley for the amount of the account, in the State of Nebraska. The plaintiff admitted in his pleadings that “said purchase was made in the State of Iowa.” The plaintiff further stated his case: •“That the sale of beer made to defendant was made for the purpose and with the intention and understanding that the same was to be shipped to said defendant at his place of business in Jackson, as aforesaid, and there to be retailed by defendant in said saloon,' and under and by authority of his license to vend and retail the same in said town of Jackson and State of Nebraska.” There was a statute in Iowa that “ no person shall manufacture or sell . . . directly or indirectly, any intox
“The Iowá statute does not undertake to prevent the transportation of intoxicating liquors from that to any other State, nor to prohibit their sale out of the State. The sale of liquors was not forbidden by reason of their transportation or intended transportation, but the same restriction is placed by the legislature upon the sale of all liquors within the State. No regulation of commerce between the States is «attempted. Had such been the case the State would have been powerless to have forbidden their sale while in the original packages. The fact that it was the intention of the defendant to ship the liquors to this State is quite immaterial. Such intention ancl purpose could not alone Juwe the effect to make the liquors interstate commerce. They did not become so until received by the carrier for shipment. Until then they were under State jurisdiction and control. The supreme court of the United States, in the case of The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall., 565 [19 L. Ed., 999], properly said: Whenever a commodity has begun to move as an article of trade from one State to another, commerce in that commodity between the States has commenced.’ ”
Ames v. Kirby, 71 N. J. Law, 442, 59 Atl., 558, is not in point. In that case the party was held under arrest for keeping a gaming house. It is true the form of gambling was the transmission of bets by telegraph to a foreign State; but as the court said, the injury to the morals of the community was the same as if the gambling had been done by any other means, consisting, as it did, in the congregating of persons at a place for the purpose of gaming. No question arose, or was considered, upon the delivery or transmission of any special telegram.
It is again insisted, as on the former hearing, that the indictment should be sustained under the police power. This court has always upheld the police power of the State with a strong hand; but we cannot accomplish the impossible task of making that power operative in the face of the constitution and laws of the United States. The rule is indubitable, and the fact insurmountable, that the States, when providing by legislation for the protection of the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, are subject to the paramount authority of the .constitution of the United States, and cannot violate rights secured or guaranteed by that instrument, or interfere with the execution of the powers confided to the general government. Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S., 259, 23 L. Ed., 543; Hannibal & St. J. R. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S., 465, 24 L. Ed., 527; New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Lousiana Light Co., 115 U. S., 650, 6 Sup. Ct., 252, 29 L. Ed., 516; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S., 446, 6 Sup. Ct., 454, 29 L. Ed., 691; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S., 465, 8 Sup. Ct., 564, 31 L. Ed., 508.
In conclusion, while this court holds in highest esteem the ability, integrity, and faithfulness of our distinguished attorney-general, and believes that no officer in any department of the State government has ever served the State with more zeal or efficiency, and while we appreciate the earnestness and fidelity with which he has presented the State’s contentions in the present case, we cannot yield to those contentions, and after full consideration of every point urged in the petition we remain unshaken in our conviction of the soundness of the views expressed in our former opinion.