SW 31.

[c] A person who is employed at a monthly salary to sell goods by samples for his principal, and who takes orders for future delivery, and carries his samples with him in a wagon, both being the property of his principal, and who afterward delivers the goods upon their being shipped to him, is not a peddler. Kennedy v. Peo., 9 Colo. A. 490, 49 P 373.

[d] "Expose for sale or sell."-A person employed to go from place to place within a county taking orders for certain kinds of merchandise, to be furnished from his employer's store, and to be delivered by the agent in about a week from the time when the order is taken, where he neither carries nor exposes for sale any goods but confines himself to taking orders and delivering the goods to fill them, does not "expose for sale or sell" goods within the meaning of the statute. State v. Wells, 69 N. H. 424, 45 A 143, 48 LRA 99.

47. Kan. Kansas V. Collins, 34 Kan. 434, 8 P 865.

La. Saal v. Fortner, 124 La. 112, 49 S 997; Pegues v. Ray, 50 La. Ann. 574, 23 S 904.

Me.-Burbank v. McDuffee, 65 Me.

135.

Miss. Ex p. Taylor, 58 Miss. 478, 38 AmR 336. Mo.-State v. Crossman, 50 Mo.

585.

A.

See generally Drummer 19 C. J. p 790.

48. Emmons v. Lewistown, 132 Ill. 380. 24 NE 58, 22 AmSR 540, 8 LRA 328; Rawlings v. Cerro Gordo, 32 Ill. A. 215; Coffey v. Hendrick. 65 SW 127, 23 KyL 1328; Moberly v. Hoover, 93 Mo. A. 663, 67 SW 721: Hewson v. Englewood, 55 N. J. L. 522, 27 A 904, 21 LRA 736. 49. Del.-State V. Dressner, 27 Del. 80, 85 A 881.

Me.-State v. Littlefield, 112 Me. 214, 91 A 945.

Nebr. Scribner v. Mohr, 90 Nebr. 21. 132 NW 734. AnnCas1912D 1287. Oh-Great Atlantic, etc., Tea Co. v. Tippecanoe, 85 Oh. St. 120, 96 NE 1092.

Pa.-Com. v. Eichenberg, 140 Pa. 158, 21 A 258; Com. v. Hance, 24 Pa. Co. 431; Com. v. Horn, 12 Pa. Co. 284. N. B.-Reg. v. Phillips, 35 N. B. 393. 7 CanCrCas 131.

Ont.-Reg. v. Marshall, 12 Ont. 55. 50. See statutory provisions. 51. Ala.-Johnston V. State, 16 Ala. A. 425, 78 S 419.

Ark. Rogers v. State, 102 Ark. 314, 144 SW 211 [rev on other grounds 227 U. S. 401. 33 SCt 886, 59 L. ed. 1419, LRA1916A 1208]; Crenshaw v. State, 95 Ark. 464, 130 SW 569.

Ga.-McCelland v. Marietta, 96 Ga. 749, 22 SE 329; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Johnson, 84 Ga. 754, 11 SE 233, 8 LRA 273; Gould v. Atlanta, 55 Ga. 678. v. Lewistown, 132 Ill. 380, 24 NE 58, 22 AmSR 540, 8 LRA 328.

Ill.-Emmons

Iowa.-State v. Bristow, 131 Iowa 664, 109 NW 199.

Mass.-Com. v. Reid, 175 Mass. 325, 56 NE 617.

Mich.-Alma V. Clow, 146 Mich. 443, 109 NW 853.

Minn.-State V. Parr, 109 Minn. 147, 123 NW 408, 134 AmSR 759. Mont.-State v. Tuffs, 54 Mont. 20. 165 P 1107.

N. C.-State v. Ninestein, 132 N. C.

53

1039, 43 SE 936; Collier v. Burgin, 130 N. C. 632, 41 SE 874; State v. Franks, 127 N. C. 510, 37 SE 70; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Carver, 118 N. C. 328, 24 SE 352.

state, takes one of the harrows which it has shipped into the state to an agent, and goes through the country with it, sometimes selling the single harrow outright, at other times takPing a written order and then delivering the one with him, and at other times taking a written order and then going back to the agent to whom they had been shipped for one, is a peddler. State v. Snoddy, 128 Mo. 523, 31 SW 36.

Or.-Ex p. Case, 70 Or. 291, 135 881, 141 P 746. AnnCas1916B 490. Pa. Titusville v. Brennan, 143 Pa. 642, 22 A 893, 24 AmSR 580, 14 LRA 100; Warren v. Geer, 117 Pa. 207, 11 A 415; Newcastle v. Cutler, 15 Pa. Super. 612; Com. v. Hunsicker, 14 Pa. Dist. 544, 30 Pa. Co. 628.

Utah.-Spanish Fork v. Mortenson, 7 Utah 33, 24 P 620.

Ont.-Re Garnham, 34 Ont. L. 545, 9 OntWN 117 [app allowed on other grounds 35 Ont. L. 54, 9 OntWN 250]; Rex v. Van Norman, 19 Ont. L. 447, 14 OntWR 659; Reg. v. Henderson, 18 Ont. 144; Reg. v. Marshall, 12 Ont. 55; Reg. v. Chayter, 11 Ont. 217.

[a] An ordinance which includes persons "offering to sell" goods as peddlers embraces one who sells by sample and delivers afterward. Spanish Fork v. Mortenson, 7 Utah 33, 24 P 620.

[b] Mercantile agent.-A person taking orders for the sale of goods for future delivery by himself or by some other person is sometimes defined as a "mercantile agent." He differs from a "peddler" in that he makes no sales or delivery of goods carried with him for that purpose, and from a "drummer" in that he takes orders for goods from customers and not from retail merchants. Brookfield v. Kitchen, 163 Mo. 546, 63 SW 825.

55. State v. Snoddy, 128 Mo. 523, 31 SW 36.

56. See statutory provisions.

[a] In North Carolina, any person using a wagon, cart, or buggy for the purpose of exhibiting or "delivering" any wares or merchandise is defined as a "peddler." State v. Ninestein, 132 N. C. 1039, 43 SE 936; State v. Franks, 127 N. C. 510, 37 SE 70; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Carver, 118 N. C. 328, 24 SE 352 [dist State v. Gibbs, 115 N. C. 700. 20 SE 172; State v. Lee, 113 N. C. 681, 18 SE 713, 37 AmSR 649, which were decided before the definition of the word "peddler" by statute].

57. U. S.-Jewel Tea Co. v. Lee's Summit, 189 Fed. 280. Colo.-Kennedy v. Peo., 9 Colo. A. 490, 49 P 373.

Del.-State v. Dressner, 27 Del. 80, 85 A 881.

Iowa.-Stuart v. Cunningham, 88 Iowa 191, 55 NW 311, 20 LRA 430. Ky.-Kentucky Consumers' Oil Co. v. Com., 192 Ky. 437, 233 SW 892; Newport v. French Bros. Bauer Co., 169 Ky. 174, 183 SW 532; Com. v. 52. Fallis v. Gas City, 169 Ind. Standard Oil Co., 129 Ky. 744, 112 508, 82 NE 1056; Graffty v. Rushville, | SW 902; Com. v. Standard Oil Co., 107 Ind. 502, 8 NE 609, 57 AmR 128; 93 SW 613, 29 KyL 433; Brenner v. Pomeroy v. Rutherford, 80 Wash. 43, Com., 9 KyL 289. 141 P 178. Mass.-Com. v. Ober, 12 Cush. 493. N. Y.-Stamford V. Fisher, 140 N. Y. 187, 35 NE 500 [aff 63 Hun 123, 17 NYS 609].

53. U. S.-Chicago Portrait Co. v. Macon, 147 Fed. 967; In re Houston, 47 Fed. 539, 14 LRA 719. Ga.-Kimmel v. Americus, 105 Ga. 694, 31 SE 623.

N. B.-Reg. v. Phillips, 35 N. B. 393, 7 CanCrCas 131.

[a] The reason for the rule that one who occasionaly sells the sample which he is carrying around is not a peddler is that the sale of samples is merely incidental to the regular employment of selling by sample for future delivery. State v. Moorehead, 42 S. C. 211, 20 SE 544, 46 AmSR 719, 26 LRA 585.

N. C.-State v. Frank, 130 N. C. 724, 41 SE 785, 89 AmSR 885; Greensboro v. Williams, 124 N. C. 167, 32 SE 492.

Pa.-Du Boistown V. Rochester Brewing Co., 9 Pa. Co. 442.

Eng.-Rex v. McKnight, 10 B. & C. 734, 21 ECL 310, 109 Reprint 623. Ont.-Reg. v. Coutts, 5 Ont. 644.

[a] Collecting the price from the purchaser does not make a person who delivers goods previously sold by another a peddler. Stuart v. Cunningham, 88 Iowa 191, 55 NW 311, 20 LRA 430.

[b] Delivery of larger quantity than that ordered.-It is not a violation of the peddling act for an agent to deliver goods, made by his principal in Boston, to traders in the country who had previously ordered them from his principal, nor to deliver at the same time and un54. McDermott v. Lewistown, 92 der the same circumstances a larger Ill. A. 474; State v. Snoddy, 128 Mo. quantity of the same goods than they 523, 31 SW 36; State v. Emert, 103 had previously ordered. Com. V. Mo. 241, 15 SW 81. 23 AmSR 874, Ober, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 493. 11 LRA 219 [aff 156 U. S. 296, 15 SCt 367, 39 L. ed. 430].

[a] Illustrations.—(1) A person is a peddler where he carries with him, in grips, articles called samples, which he delivers when sold in so far as he has the goods with him, although he does not deliver until afterward if he has not sufficient samples with him. McDermott v. Lewistown, 92 Ill. A. 474. (2) Under a statute declaring any person who deals in goods by going from place to place to sell the same to be a peddler, one who, as an agent of an establishment located in another

|

[c] Delivery of not less than minimum sold.-An oil company which agreed to furnish fuel oil to a lighting plant, and delivered it in tank wagons holding from five hundred to six hundred gallons, in no instance delivering less than five hundred gallons, was not a "peddler" within the meaning of St. § 4215, prohibiting peddling without alicense. Kentucky Consumers' Oil Co. v. Com., 192 Ky. 437, 233 SW 892.

58. Johnston v. State, 16 Ala. A. 425, 78 S 419; Duncan v. State, 105 Ga. 457, 30 SE 755; Com. v. Edson, 2 Pa. Co. 377.

61

mer

59. Alexander v. Greenville County, 49 S. C. 527, 27 SE 469. [a] Illustration.-Local chants who carry a stock of sewing machines, and who after taking orders therefor at their store deliver them in the country, through their agent, are not peddlers, because the agent while in the country filling orders occasionally sells from the delivery wagon a new machine or an old one taken in trade. Alexander v. Greenville County, 49 S. C. 527, 27 SE 469.

60. Ga.-Davis v. Macon, 64 Ga. 128, 37 AmR 60. Mass.-Com. 325, 56 NE 617. Minn.-Duluth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 435, 49 NW 235.

v. Reid, 175 Mass.

N. Y.-Ballston Spa v. Markham, 58 Hun 238, 11 NYS 826.

Pa.-Elizabeth V. Braum, 17 Pa.

Co. 257.

[a] One who sells prohibited goods from house to house, at the request of purchasers, while driving about delivering goods for a manufacturer, and without any previous intention of selling or exposing goods for sale, is nevertheless a peddler. Com. v. Ober, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 493. [b] Butchers who deliver meat to their customers from a wagon to fill orders previously given, and also sell meat from such wagon to persons who have not previously ordered it, and whose driver is in the habit of going to houses and soliciting the inmates to buy when they do not see the wagon and come out on the street, are peddlers, although they only sell meat to regular customers. Davis v. Macon, 64 Ga. 128, 37 AmR 60; Duluth v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 435, 49 NW 235; Ballston Spa v. Markham, 58 Hun 238, 11 NYS 826; Elizabeth v. Braum, 17 Pa. Co., 257. See also Phonixville Borough v. Eyrick, 42 Pa. Super. 241( if the evidence is conflicting as to whether a butcher merely makes deliveries with his wagon and takes orders, or whether he in fact sells from house to house, the case is for the jury).

61. Chicago Portrait Co. v. Macon, 147 Fed. 967; State v. Coop, 52 S. C. 508, 30 SE 609, 41 LRA 501.

62. State v. Montgomery, 92 Me. 433, 43 A 13; State v. Looney, 214 Mo. 216, 97 SW 934, 99 SW 1165, 29 LRANS 412.

63. Toledo v. Brown, 14 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 165, 168, 32 Oh. Cir. Ct. 357 [quot Cyc].

23.

Express exemption see infra §§ 17

19 A 550, 19 AmSR 645, 7 LRA 666 [writ of error dism 149 U. S. 774 mem, 13 SCt 1047 mem, 37 L. ed. 962 mem]; Com. v. Roenick, 10 Pa. Dist. 51.

65. Ga.-Davis v. Macon, 64 Ga. 128, 37 AmR 60.

Ida. Ex p. Snyder, 10 Ida. 682, 79 P 819. 68 LRA 708.

La.-State v. Hayes. 143 La. 39, 78 S 143; Roy v. Schuff, 51 La. Ann. 86, 24 S 788.

Mo.-St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583. 84 SW 914.

Oh.-Toledo v. Brown, 14 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 165, 169, 32 Oh. Cir. Ct. 357 [quot Cyc].

Pa.-Com. v. Gardner, 133 Pa. 284, 19 A 550, 19 AmSR 645, 7 LRA 666; Irwin Borough v. Douglass, 8 Pa. Dist. 505; Lansford v. Wertman, 18 Pa. Co. 469.

Tex.-Ex p. Hogg, 70 Tex. Cr. 161, 165, 156 SW 931 [quot Cyc]. Tenn.-Nashville v. Hager, 5 Tenn. Civ. A. 192.

[a] Farmer selling meat of his own raising.-A farmer may sell without license beef from slaughtered animals raised and slaughtered by him, since he is not a peddler. In re Snyder, 10 Ida. 682, 79 P 819, 68 LRA 708.

[b] Lelling milk.-(1) The occupation of a dairyman, going about delivering the milk from his farm to his regular customers according to their previous orders, is not, within the ordinary meaning or acceptation of the term, peddling or hawking. State v. Hayes, 143 La. 39, 78 S 143. (2) A farmer. a nonresident of a borough, who as incident to his business delivers milk to regular customers, part of which is the prod-| uct of his own dairy and part of which is purchased from others, is not a peddler. Lehighton Borough V. Smith, 9 Pa. Dist. 428; South Easton v. Moser, 18 Pa. Co. 343. (3) It would seem, however, that if an ordinance expressly requires a license from a milk dealer selling from door to door, it would embrace farmers who peddle their milk. Chicago v. Bartee. 100 Ill. 57; Easton v. Kemmerer, 3 Pa. Dist. 220, 13 Pa. Co. 522.

66. State v. Kumpel, 16 Del. 464, 43 A 173; Com. v. Roenick, 10 Pa. Dist. 51.

67. Com. V. Hunsicker, 14 Pa. Dist. 544, 30 Pa. Co. 628 (a farmer who buys cattle and hogs, which he slaughters and converts into beef and pork, which he sells from his wagon along the public streets and highways, is not a hawker or peddler or traveling merchant).

68. State v. Jensen. 93 Minn. 88. 100 NW 644 (the decision is based on the ground that there is no just reason why a farmer, gardener, etc., should not be placed on the same basis as those who purchase their stock from others).

69. Colo.-Eaton v. Peo., 46 Colo. 361, 104 P 407.

Conn.-State v. Feingold, 77 Conn. 326, 59 A 211.

Iowa. Snyder v. Closson, 84 Iowa

66

184, 50 NW 678.

Me.-Wolf v. Runnels, 90 Me. 253. 38 A 100.

Mass.-Com. v. Crowell, 156 Mass. 215. 30 NE 1015.

Mont.-State v. Tuffs, 54 Mont. 20, 165 P 1107.

N. H.-State v. Powell, 69 N. H. 353. 41 A 171.

Oh.-Burgunder v. Weil, 60 Oh. St. 234, 53 NE 1096.

R. I.-State v. Foster, 22 R. I. 163, 46 A 833, 50 LRA 339.

Vt.-State V. Harrington, 68 Vt. 622, 35 A 515, 34 LRA 100.

[a] Who are.-(1) To constitute an "itinerant vendor" it is not necessary that a person should travel all the time and have no fixed place of sale. He may have a place of business where he sells his goods during a part of the time, and he may travel for the sale of his goods at other times. Snyder v. Closson, 84 Iowa 184. 50 NW 678. (2) The term "itinerant vendor," under a statute defining him as a person who is "engaged in a temporary or transient business in this state," does not include those whose business in the state is permanent, even when such persons carry on a part of their business temporarily in a place apart from their usual location. State v. Powell, 69 N. H. 353, 41 A 171. (3) A person is an itinerant vendor whether his whole business is selling temporarily or transiently, or whether he does it more or less frequently in connection with a permanent business at a fixed place or places. Com. v. Crowell, 156 Mass. 215, 30 NE 1015; State v. Foster. 22 R. I. 163, 46 A 833, 50 LRA 339. (4) Only those engaged in a temporary or transient business in the sale of merchandise in the state are included. Those are necessarily excepted who maintain a permanent place of business in the state, and who dispose of their merchandise through agents soliciting and securing orders therefor. Eaton v. Peo., 46 Colo. 361, 104 P 407.

[b] A single transaction does not constitute one an itinerant vendor, there must be a constantly recurring succession of transactions carried on by one regularly employed as a seller of goods. State v. Feingold, 77 Conn. 326, 59 A 211; State v. Littlefield, 112 Me. 214, 91 A 945.

70. Waterloo v. Heely,, 81 Ill. A. 310; Peoria v. Gugenheim, 61 Ill. A. 374.

71. Smith V. Whiddon, 138 Ga. 471, 75 SE 635.

[a] Who are.-(1) Merchants who ship provisions from another state to an agent, who sells the goods so shipped by traveling around the city and then delivering them from the cars or freight depot, and who has no store or warehouse or other place of business in the city, are itinerant traders. Burr V. Atlanta, 64 Ga. 225 [dist Gould v. Atlanta, 55 Ga. 678]. (2) A trader who opens a house within a city for the purpose of selling out therein a

[29 C. J.-15]

traders, ''72 "itinerant merchants, ''73 "transient merchants," and "traveling merchants."'75 Such terms are sometimes considered and employed as equivalent to, and synonomous with "hawker" or "peddler," but sometimes they are not so considered." Under some enactments,78 an itinerant vendor or transient trader is one whose business, although only conducted temporarily in a community, is localized by the occupation of a building or store for the exhibition and sale of his goods,79 thus differentiating him from a hawker or peddler.

80

[8] A. In General. From early times,86 it has been well settled that the legislature has the power to enact statutes regulating hawkers and stock of goods, and who deposits in the house a large stock and proceeds to sell them out in the one place by auction or otherwise, and who does not convey any of the goods, or carry samples thereof from point to point in the city for the purpose of sale, exhibition, or the solicitation of orders, but who waits for customers to come to him at the location where he has established his business, is not an itinerant "trader." Gould v. Atlanta, 55 Ga. 678.

72. Reg. v. Wilson, 7 B. C. 112; Reg. v. Cuthbert, 45 U. C. Q. B. 19; Rex v. Meyers, 6 Ont. L. 120, 2 Ont WR 533.

78. See statutory provisions.

79. Conn.-State v. Feingold, 77 Conn. 326, 59 A 211.

Me.-State v. Littlefield, 112 Me. 214. 91 A 945.

Mass.-Com. v. Crowell, 156 Mass. 215, 30 NE 1015.

R. I.-State v. Foster, 22 R. I. 163, 46 A 833, 50 LRA 339.

Vt.-State v. Harrington, 68 Vt. 622, 35 A 515, 34 LRA 100.

B. C.-Reg. v. Wilson, 7 B. C. 112. Ont.-Rex V. Scales, 41 Ont. L. 229, 30 CanCrCas 82; Reg. v. Applebe. 20 Ont. 623; Reg. v. Cuthbert, 45 C. Q. B. 19.

80. Reg. v. Applebe, 30 Ont. 623. 81. New Castle v. Cutler, 15 Pa. Super. 612; State V. Sprinkle, 7 Humphr. (Tenn.) 36.

82.

Ind.-Graffty v. Rushville, 107 Ind. 502, 8 NE 609, 57 AmR 128. Iowa.-Waukon v. Fisk, 124 Iowa 464. 100 NW 475.

[a] A butcher or dealer in meat may be a transient trader. Rex v. Mars, 6 Ont. L. 220, 2 OntWR 533. [b] Sale of goods by consignee.-U. (1) Under an ordinance defining a transient trader as one who occupies premises in the municipality for a temporary period, and whose name has not been duly entered on the assessment roll in respect to income or personal property for the then current year, where goods are consigned to be sold on commission and they are sold in the shops or premises of the consignee and by him and on his behalf, the owner of the goods is not an occupant of such premises nor a transient trader (Reg. v. Wilson, 7 B. C. 112; Reg. v. Cuthbert, 45 U. C. Q. B. 19), (2) merely because he accompanies the goods and assists in their sale (Reg. v. Cuthbert, supra).

73. Carrollton v. Bazzette, 159 Ill. 284, 42 NE 837, 31 LRA 522; Walnut v. Barnett, 141 Ill. A. 367; Peoria v. Gugenheim, 61 Ill. A. 374; Greensboro v. Williams, 124 N. C. 167, 32 SE 492; Dell Rapids v. McShane, 37 S. D. 86, 156 NW 789.

[a] Who are.-The terms "itinerant merchant" and "transient vendor" mean "persons who for a short space of time locate in a city and make sale and delivery of their goods, as other merchants do, or those who carry or transport their goods from house to house, or place to place, and make sale and delivery of their goods in like manner as other merchants or salesmen do." Twining v. Elgin, 38 Ill. A. 356, 361 [quot Waterloo v. Heely, 81 Ill. A. 310. 315].

74. Ottumwa v. Zekind, 95 Iowa 622, 64 NW 646, 58 AmSR 447. 29 LRA 734; Pacific Junction v. Dyer, 64 Iowa 38, 19 NW 862.

75. Com. v. Edson, 2 Pa. Co. 377. 76. Cal.-In re Gilstrap, 171 Cal. 108, 112, 152 P 42, AnnCas1917A 1086.

Ga. Smith V. Whiddon, 138 Ga. 471, 75 SE 635; Gould v. Atlanta, 55 Ga. 678.

Ill.-Twining v. Elgin, 38 Ill. A. 356. But see Carrollton v. Bazzette, 159 Ill. 284, 42 NE 837, 31 LRA 522 (there is a difference between an itinerant merchant and a peddler).

La.-Pegues v. Ray, 50 La. Ann. 574, 23 S 904.

Or.-State v. Miller, 54 Or. 381, 103 P 519.

Mass.-Com. v. Ober, 12 Cush. 493. Pa.-Com. v. Gardner, 133 Pa. 284, 19 A 550, 19 AmSR 645, 7 LRA 666 [writ of error dism 149 U. S. 774 mem, 13 SCt 1047 mem, 37 L. ed. 962 mem]; Com. v. Edson, 2 Pa. Co. 377. Philippine.-Singh v. Insular Collector of Customs, 38 Philippine 867.

S. D.-Dell Rapids v. McShane, 37 S. D. 86, 156 NW 789.

See also supra § 1; and generally Merchant [27 Cyc 478]. 83. See supra § 1.

84. See Commercial Traveler 12 C. J. p 142; Drummer 19 C. J. p 790. See also supra § 2.

85. Cross references: Power to license see Licenses [25 Cyc 598 et seq].

Uniformity of occupation, taxes, and licenses see Taxation [37 Cyc 732]. Validity of enactments see Commerce §§ 145-147; Constitutional Law 12 C. J. p 653; Licenses [25 Cyc 603 et seq].

86. Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296, 15 SCt 367, 39 L. ed. 430; Com. v. Fox. 218 Mass. 498, 106 NE 137; Com. v. Ellis, 158 Mass. 555, 33 NE 651: State v. Webber, 214 Mo. 272, 113 SW 1054, 15 AnnCas 983; State v. Looney, 214 Mo. 216, 97 SW 934, 99 SW 1165, 29 LRANS 412: Atty.-Gen. v. Tongue, 12 Price 51. 147 Reprint 653.

87. U. S.-Ex p. Crowder, 171 Fed. 250.

Ark.-Rogers v. State, 102 Ark. 314, 144 SW 211 [rev on other grounds 227 U. S. 401. 33 SCt 886, 59 L. ed. 1419, LRA1916A 1208]. Cal.-In re Gilstrap, 171 Cal. 108, 152 P 42, AnnCas1917A 1086.

Colo. Smith v. Farr. 46 Colo. 364, 104 P 401; Leonard v. Reed, 46 Colo. 307, 104 P 410, 133 AmSR 77.

Iowa.-State v. Wheelock, 95 Iowa 577, 64 NW 620, 58 AmSR 442, 30 LRA 429.

Ky.-West v. Mt. Sterling, 65 SW 120, 23 KyL 1670.

Me.-State v. Montgomery, 92 Me.

Mich.-Alma V. Clow, 146 Mich. 443, 109 NW 853; Peo. v. Russell, 49 Mich. 619, 14 NW 568, 43 AmR 478. Miss. Adams v. Standard Oil Co., 97 Miss. 879, 53 S 692.

Nebr.-Gerrard v. State, 64 Nebr. 368, 89 NW 1062.

N. Y.-Stamford V. Fisher, 140 N. Y. 187, 35 NE 500 [aff 63 Hun 123, 17 NYS 609]; Mullins v. Peo., 24 N. Y. 399, 23 HowPr 289; Peo. v. Gilbert, 68 Misc. 48, 123 NYS 264.

N. C.-Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Carver, 118, N. C. 328, 24 SE 352.

N. D.-In re Lipschitz, 14 N. D. 622, 95 NW 157; State v. Klectzen, 8 N. D. 286, 78 NW 984.

Oh.-Toledo v. Brown, 14 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 165, 168, 32 Oh. Cir. Ct. 357 [quot Cyc].

Pa.-Brownback v. North Wales, 194 Pa. 609, 45 A 660, 49 LRA 446 [aff 10 Pa. Super. 227]; Com. v. Harmel, 166 Pa. 89, 30 A 1036, 27 LRA 388; Sayre Borough v. Phillips, 148 Pa. 482, 24 A 76, 33 AmSR 842, 16 LRA 49; Com. v. Gardner, 133 Pa. 284, 19 A 550, 19 AmSR 645, 7 LRA 666 [writ of error dism 149 U. S. 774 mem, 13 SCt 1047 mem. 37 L. ed. 962 mem]; Com. v. Brinton, 132 Pa. 69, 18 A 1092; Com. v. Shaffer, 128 Pa. 575, 18 A 390; Com. v. Rearick, 26 Pa. Super. 384 [rev on other grounds 203 U. S. 507, 27 SCt 159, 51 L. ed. 295]; Com. v. Cullum, 7 Pa. Super. 77; Com. v. Colton, 7 Pa. Super. 76; Com. v. Adams, 7 Pa. Super. 74.

R. I.-State v. Frank, 38 R. I. 40, 94_A_665.

S. D.-State v. Thompson, 25 S. D. 148, 125 NW 567. Utah.-State V. Bayer, 34 Utah 257, 97 P 129, 19 LRANS 297. Va.-Com. v. Myer, 92 Va. 809, 23 SE 915, 31 LRA 379.

Wis.-Dewitt v. State, 155 Wis. 249, 144 NW 253; Morrill v. State, 38 Wis. 428, 20 AmR 12 [rev on other grounds 154 U. S. 626, 14 SCt 1206, 23 L. ed. 1009].

And see generally Constitutional Law § 432.

[a] Authority to exact license fees may be sustained as an exercise (1) either of the police power of a state for regulation (State v. Montgomery, 92 Me. 433, 43 A 13; State v. Klectzen, 8 N. D. 286, 78 NW 984; Toledo v. Brown, 14 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 165, 32 Oh. Cir. Ct. 357; Dewitt v. State, 155 Wis. 249, 144 NW 253), (2) or the power of taxation for revenue (State v. Montgomery, supra; Gerrard v. State, 64 Nebr. 368, 89 NW 1062; Rosenbloom v. State, 64 Nebr. 342, 89 NW 1053, 57 LRA 922; In re Lipschitz, 14 N. D. 622, 95 NW 157; State v. Klectzen, supra; In re Garfinkle, 37 Wash. 650, 80 P 188; Dewitt V. State, supra). (3) or both (State v. Schofield, 136 La. 702, 67 S 557; State v. Montgomery, supra; Dewitt v. State, supra).

[b] Traveling for purpose of peddling.-It is as competent for the

90

upon which such licenses shall be granted,88 and, under the police power, may prohibit entirely the business of hawking and peddling, or prohibit it in certain places." Enactments as to hawking and peddling must not, however, contravene the provisions of the federal and state constitutions as to privileges or immunities and class legislation, 91 the equal protection of the laws, 92 and due process of law, 93 or the provision of the federal constitution as to interstate and foreign commerce." The legislature has no power to discriminate in favor of citizens of one county as against citizens of other counties in the same state,' 95 or to require a license for the peddling of goods only where manufactured in the state.96 The power of the legislature may be delegated, as for example, to a municipality 8 or other local authority.99

97

94

98

5

[9] B. By Municipal Corporations.1 While a municipality has no inherent authority to require a license of hawkers and peddlers,2 it would seem legislature to prohibit persons from | 307, 104 P 410, 133 AmSR 77. (2) A traveling for the purpose of hawking and peddling without license, as to prohibit actual sales by hawkers and peddlers without license. Morrill v. State, 38 Wis. 428, 20 AmR 12 [rev on other grounds 154 U. S. 626, 14 SCt 1206, 23 L. ed. 1009].

32.

88. Com. v. Lippincott, 7 Pa. Co.

89. Com. v. Gardner, 133 Pa. 284, 19 A 550, 19 AmSR 645, 7 LRA 666 [writ of error dism 149 U. S. 774 mem, 13 SCt 1047 mem, 37 L. ed. 962 mem]; Com. v. Lippincott, 7 Pa. Co. 32; Morrill v. State, 38 Wis. 428, 20 AmR 12 [rev on other grounds 154 U. S. 626, 14 SCt 1206, 23 L. ed. 1009]. 90. Com. v. Dunham, 191 Pa. 73, 43 A 84 [aff 4 Pa. Super. 74]; Warden's License, 24 Pa. Super. 75; Com. Lippincott, 7 Pa. Co. 32. Contra Fromberg's Pet., 4 Pa. Co. 354.

V.

91. U. S.-Ex p. v. Davis, 21 Fed. 396.

Ark. Ex p. Deeds, 75 Ark. 542, 87 SW 1030.

Colo.-Smith v. Farr, 46 Colo. 364, 104 P 401.

Ida. In re Abel, 10 Ida. 288, 77 P 621.

Kan. In re Jarvis, 66 Kan. 329, 71 P 576.

Ky.-Newport V. French Bros. Bauer Co., 169 Ky. 174, 183 SW 532. La.-State v. Schofield, 136 La. 702, 67 S 557.

Me.-State v. Mitchell, 97 Me. 66, 53 A 887, 94 AMSR 481.

Mass.-Com. v. Hana, 195 Mass. 262, 81 NE 149, 122 AmSR 251, 11 LRANS 799, 11 AnnCas 514.

Minn.-State v. Parr, 109 Minn. 147, 123 NW 408, 134 AmSR 759.

Miss. Adams v. Standard Oil Co., 97 Miss. 879, 53 S 692.

N. C.-Smith v. Wilkins, 164 N. C. 135, 80 SE 168.

Or.-Anderson v. Farr, 97 Or. 137, 191 P 346.

Pa.-Com. v. Snyder, 182 Pa. 630, 38 A 356; Sayre Borough v. Phillips, 148 Pa. 482, 24 A 76, 33 AmSR 842, 16 LRA 49; Com. v. Simm, 19 Pa. Dist. 733.

S. D.-In re Watson, 17 S. D. 486, 97 NW 463, 2 AnnCas 321. Utah.-State v. Bayer, 34 Utah 257, 97 P 129, 19 LRANS 297.

68 Vt.

Vt.-State v. Harrington, 622, 35 A 515, 34 LRA 100. Va.-Com. v. Myer, 92 Va. 809, 23 SE 915, 31 LRA 379.

Wash.-Bacon v. Locke, 42 Wash. 215, 83 P 721, 7 AnnCas 589. Wis.-State v. Whitcom, 122 Wis. 110, 99 NW 468.

See Constitutional Law § 824 et seq. [a] Illustrations.-(1) A statute as to itinerant vendors is invalid which provides an unreasonable classification by exempting commercial travelers or agents selling to merchants in the usual course of business. Smith v. Farr, 46 Colo. 364, 104 P 401; Leonard v. Reed, 46 Colo.

statute singling out a few articles, goods not produced or manufactured in the state, and which are not even injurious to health or morals, and requiring license tax to be paid to peddle any of them, while the business of peddling all other goods, including those which are injurious to health and morals, may be carried on without license, cannot be sustained as a police measure. State v. Bayer, 34 Utah 257, 97 P 129, 19 LRANS 297. 92. U. S.-Ex p. Crowder, 171 Fed. 250.

Ark.-Ex p. Deeds, 75 Ark. 542, 87 SW 1030.

Cal.-In re Gilstrap, 171 Cal. 108, 152 P 42, AnnCas1917Á 1086.

Colo. Smith v. Farr, 46 Colo. 364, 104 P 401; Leonard v. Reed, 46 Colo. 307, 104 P 410, 133 AmSR 77.

Ind.-Levy v. State, 161 Ind. 251, 68 NE 172.

Me.-State v. Mitchell, 97 Me. 66, 53 A 887, 94 AmSR 481.

Mo.-State v. Webber, 214 Mo. 272, 113 SW 1054, 15 AnnCas 983.

Nev.-Ex p. Taylor, 35 Nev. 504, 131 P 133.

Utah. State v. Bayer, 34 Utah 257, 97 P 129, 19 LRANS 297.

See Constitutional Law § 874 et seq.

93. Ex p. Crowder, 171 Fed. 250; In re Gilstrap, 171 Cal. 108, 152 P 42, AnnCas1917A 1086. See Constitutional Law § 956 et seq.

94. See Commerce §§ 145-147. 95. Ex p. Deeds, 75 Ark. 542, 87 SW 1030; Com. v. Snyder, 182 Pa. 630, 38 A 356.

96. State v. Hoyt, 71 Vt. 59, 42 A 973. 97.

Com. v. Fox, 218 Mass. 498, 106 NE 137. See also infra § 9. 98. See infra § 9. 99. Com. v. Fox, 218 Mass. 498, 106 NE 137.

[a] Police commissioner of city.A statute providing that the police commissioner of a city may designate from time to time certain streets or parts of streets, or sections of the city, wherein it shall be lawful on particular days, and within the hours specified and under such general rules as he may make, for any hawker or peddler to stand to sell merchandise, etc., is a proper exercise of the legislature's power to regulate the business, and to delegate to a local board or officer the power to establish rules touching the conduct of a business by which the public interests in definite districts might be affected. Com. v. Fox, 218 Mass. 498, 106 NE 137.

1. Cross references: Power to regulate and license occupations and businesses generally see Licenses [25 Cyc 600 et seq]; Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 720 et seq].

Corporations [28 Cyc 934].

2. St. Paul v. Stoltz, 33 Minn. 233, 22 NW 634; Peo. v. Jarvis, 19 App. Div. 466, 46 NYS 596. See also Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 723].

3. New Orleans v. Fargot, 116 La. 369, 40 S 735; Muhlenbrinck v. Long Branch Comrs., 42 N. J. L. 364, 36 AmR 518; Nashville v. Hager, 5 Tenn. Civ. A. 192. See also generally Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 7201.

4. Colo. Kennedy v. Peo., 9 Colo. A. 490, 49 P 373.

Conn.-State v. Blavin, 67 Conn. 29, 34 A 708.

Ida. Ex p. Snyder, 10 Ida. 682, 79 P 819, 68 LRA 708.

Ind.-Martin v. Rosedale, 130 Ind. 109, 29 NE 410.

N. Y.-Stamford v. Fisher, 140 N. Y. 187, 35 NE 500 [aff 63 Hun 123, 17 NYS 609]; Collender v. Reardon, 138 App. Div. 738, 123 NYS 587: Jones v. Foster, 43 App. Div. 33, 59 NYS 738.

Pa.-North Wales v. Brownback, 10 Pa. Super. 227 [aff 194 Pa. 609, 45 A 660, 49 LRA 446].

Tex.-Ex p. Wade, 66 Tex. Cr. 181, 146 SW 179; Ex p. Henson, 49 Tex. Cr. 177, 90 SW 874.

Can. Jonas v. Gilbert, 5 Can. S. C. 356.

And see Licenses [25 Cyc 600]; Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 7231. [a] Licensing under power to restrain.-A municipality has power to pass an ordinance requiring a license to hawk and peddle therein, under a statute empowering municipalities "to restrain hawking and peddling." South Bend v. Martin, 142 Ind. 31, 41 NE 315, 29 LRA 531; Huntington v. Cheesebro, 57 Ind. 74.

5. State v. Cederaski, 80 Conn. 478, 69 A 19.

6. Brooks v. Mangan, 86 Mich. 577, 49 NW 633, 24 AmSR 137; Peo. v. Jarvis, 19 App. Div. 466, 46 NYS 596; Elizabeth Borough v. Braum, 17 Pa. Co. 257; Warren Borough v. Lewis, 16 Pa. Co. 176; In re Garfinkle, 37 Wash. 650, 80 P 188.

8.

Conway v. Waddell, 90 Ark. 127, 118 SW 398; Kennedy v. Peo., 9 Colo. A. 490, 49 P 373; Ex p. Wade, 66 Tex. Cr. 181, 146 SW 179; Ex p. Henson, 49 Tex. Cr. 177, 90 SW 874; In re Garfinkle, 37 Wash. 650, 80 P 188.

9. Ark.-Conway V. Waddell, 90 Ark. 127, 118 SW 398. Colo.-Kennedy v. Peo., 9 Colo. A. 490, 49 P 373.

Conn.-State v. Glavin, 67 Conn. 29, 34 A 708.

Ill.-Goodrich v. Busse, 247 Ill. 366, 93 NE 292, 139 AmSR 335, 20 AnnCas

11

Prohibiting public nuisances. Under the power to regulate,10 a municipality may compel peddlers and hawkers while pursuing their occupation to keep within due bounds and not to act in a manner that renders their occupation a public nuisance, may prohibit public outcry and the use of horns or bells in the public streets by them, 12 and may prohibit them from loitering in the streets other public places. 13-14

and

Time and place of peddling. Under the power to regulate and control peddling,15 a municipality may prohibit peddling within a specified portion thereof,16 the district specified not being so extensive as to effect a practically general prohibition of the business of peddling within the municipality,1 17 and may, it has been held, prohibit peddling on the public squares and in certain streets; 18 but it has also been held that the power given to a municipality to license and regulate hawkers does not authorize such a prohibition.19

General rules as to validity are applicable to ordinances licensing or regulating peddling, 20 Like other ordinances,21 those as to hawking and peddling must not be violative of the federal and state constitutions, 22 or of any statute, 23 and must not contravene any well settled public policy or rule of the common law, except by express legislative grant; 24 and must be uniform in operation, 25 and reasonable, definite,27 consistent,28 and capable of enforcement.29 Ordinances have been declared in

146 SW 179; Ex p. Henson, 49 Tex. Cr. 177, 90 SW 874.

10. See supra this section. 11. New Orleans v. Fargot, 116 La. 369, 40 S 735. See generally Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 715, 752]. 12. Goodrich v. Busse, 247 Ill. 366, 93 NE 292, 139 AmSR 335, 20 AnnCas 589; New Orleans v. Fargot, 116 La. 369, 40 S 735; Muhlenbrinck v. Long Branch Comrs., 42 N. J. L. 364, 36 AmR 518.

13-14. Shreveport v. Dantes, 118 La. 113. 42 S 716, 8 LRANS 304. 15. See supra this section.

16. In re Camp, 38 Wash. 393, 80 P 547.

17. In re Camp, 38 Wash. 393, 80 P 547.

18. Ex p. Hogg, 70 Tex. Cr. 161, 156 SW 931.

19.

447.

Virgo v. Toronto, 22 Can. S. C.

20. See infra this section; and generally Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 361].

21. See Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc 361 et seq.].

22. Ind.-Graffty v. Rushville, 107 Ind. 502, 8 NE 609, 57 AmR 128.

Minn. State v. Nolan, 108 Minn. 170, 122 NW 255.

N. Y.-Peo. v. Gilbert, 68 Misc. 48, 123 NYS 264.

Tenn.-Nashville v. Hager, 5 Tenn. Civ. A. 192.

Wash.-In re Camp, 38 Wash. 393, 80 P 547.

And see supra § 8. [a] In Tennessee farmers and gardeners who bring into the city the products of their farms and gardens for sale direct to consumers cannot be classed and taxed as peddlers as this would violate the constitutional provision which prohibits the levying of any tax upon the products of the soil of this state either in the hands of the producer or his immediate vendee. Nashville v. Hager, 5 Tenn. Civ. A. 192.

23. Ida. Ex p. Snyder, 10 Ida. 682, 79 P 819, 68 LRA 708.

Mass.-Green V. Fitchburg, 219 Mass. 121, 106 NE 573.

N. H.-State v. Angelo, 71 N. H. 224, 51 A 905.

N. Y.-Peo. v. Gilbert, 68 Misc. 48, 123 NYS 264.

30

valid which operated so as to discriminate against nonresidents or their products and in favor of residents, or the purpose of which was merely to benefit the resident merchants or dealers of a municipality,31 which prohibited the peddling of garden produce on the streets during the hours when such produce would ordinarily be purchased, 32 which required one peddling a certain article to have a license, and gave the municipal council power to refuse arbitrarily a license,33 or which required peddlers of various commodities to take out a license but excepted from their operation persons selling by sample to manufacturers or to licensed merchants or to dealers residing or doing business in the municipality. An ordinance prohibiting peddling without a license must be directed against the business, and not against a class of persons engaged in the business; otherwise it is a trade regulation and invalid.35 A statute empowering a municipality to make all needful regulations respecting markets and market days, and the hawking and peddling of market produce and other articles in the municipality does not authorize the passage of an ordinance prohibiting the sale by a hawker or peddler of certain articles, or discriminating in favor of certain individuals.36

34

Construction of ordinances. Ordinances prohibiting peddling without a license, being in restriction of a common-law right to pursue a legitimate and innocent occupation, should be strictly construed.37

[a] Illustrations.—(1) An ordinance making it unlawful for unlicensed persons to hawk or peddle, etc., in any of the streets of the city, or "take orders or deliver goods from such orders," except grocers, butchers, conducting their business from stores located in the city. Peo. v. Ericson, 147 NYS 226. (2) An ordinance imposing a license on peddlers having no regular place of business in the city, but who solicit therein orders for the sale and future delivery of tea, coffee, spices, etc. Ideal Tea Co. v. Salem, 77 Or. 182, 150 P 852, AnnCas1917D 684. (3) An ordinance discriminating against a nonresident applicant for license to peddle, by imposing a greater fee on him than on a resident within the state. Morgan v. Orange, 50 N. J. L. 389, 13 A 240. (4) A city ordinance, requiring nonresident hawkers or peddlers of merchandise not grown or manufactured in the county in which such city is situated to pay a license fee. Graffty v. Rushville, 107 Ind. 502, 8 NE 609, 57 AmR 128

31. In re Snyder, 10 Ida. 682, 79 P 819, 68 LRA 708; Chaddock v. Day, 75 Mich. 527. 42 NW 977, 13 AmSR 468, 4 LRA 809; Com. v. Hepner, 22 Pa. Co. 630: Warren Borough v. Lewis. 16 Pa. Co. 176. But see Cherokee v. Fox, 34 Kan. 16, 17, 7 P 625 (an ordinance requiring a "professional hawker or peddler of any article of merchandise or traffic usually kept for sale by any merchant or manufacturer of the city" to pay a license for selling or offering for sale "any such article of merchandise, or traffic at retail," is not invalid).

32. Buffalo v. Linsman, 113 App. Div. 584, 98 NYS 737. 33. La Junta v. Heath, 38 Colo. Borough V.

34. Mechanicsburg Koons, 18 Pa. Super. 131. 35. Shamokin Borough v. Flannigan, 156 Pa. 43, 26 A 780; Sayre Borough v. Phillips, 148 Pa. 482, 24 A 76, 33 AmSR 842. 16 LRA 49; Wilcox v. Knopville Borough, 2 Pa. Dist. 721, 12 Pa. Co. 641.

36. Sharon Borough v. Golden, 4 Pa. Co. 357.

37. Peo. v. Ericson, 147 NYS 226. See generally Municipal Corporations