227 U.S. 401

33 S.Ct. 298

57 L.Ed. 569

P. L. ROGERS, Plff. in Err.,v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS. NO 576. L. P. BARNHILL, Plff. inErr., v. STATE OF ARKANSAS. NO 577.

Nos. 576 and 577.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued January 21, 1913.February 24, 1913

Mr. A. C. Lyon for plaintiffs in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 402-405 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Charles C. Reid, Mr. Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General of Arkansas,Mr. William H. Rector, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. T. M.Mehaffy for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 405-408 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

1 The plaintiffs in error were convicted of peddling buggies in Greene county,Arkansas, without having paid the license or privilege tax required by an act ofthe Arkansas legislature approved April 1, 1909, regulating the sale oflightning rods, steel stove ranges, clocks, pumps, and vehicles in the counties ofthat state. (The provisions of such statute are set out in the case just decided,Crenshaw v. Arkansas [227 U. S. 389, 57 L. ed. —, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 294]).The supreme court of Arkansas affirmed the judgments upon the authority ofCrenshaw v. State, 95 Ark. 464, 130 S. W. 569 (——Ark. ——, 144 S. W.211), and the cases are here upon writ of error.

2 The cases were submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, the gist of which

is that the Spaulding Manufacturing Company, a partnership, with its principalplace of business and factory at Grinnell, Iowa, manufactures buggies andautomobiles which are sold directly to the consumers throughout the UnitedStates. It has no permanent place of business in Arkansas, but sends a force ofsalesmen or canvassers, in charge of a superintendent, into Greene and othercounties of Arkansas, who travel about exhibiting their sample buggies andtaking orders for future delivery. Where orders are taken, a memorandum issigned by the purchaser, stipulating for the delivery of the vehicle within acertain time, and a note for the purchase price is secured. The orders are turnedover to the superintendent, who, if he finds the financial responsibility of thecustomers satisfactory, transmits the orders to an agent of the company atMemphis, Tennessee, where vehicles of the company of various grades andkinds are stored. Vehicles to fill the orders are selected, tagged with the nameof the purchaser, and shipped in carload lots to a place near where they are tobe delivered, consigned to the company. An employee of the company, usuallya different person from the salesman, called a delivery man, receives thevehicles and delivers them to the respective purchasers, no storage house beingmaintained at that point. It was further agreed that no vehicles, save thesamples, which are never sold, are brought into or stored in Arkansas, exceptfor the purpose of delivery upon orders previously taken; and no vehicles aresold other than upon orders taken before they are brought into the state. Theplaintiffs in error were salesmen and transacted the business above described.

3 The manner in which the business of soliciting orders for and deliveringvehicles was done by the Spaulding Manufacturing Company differs in nopractical or material particular from that employed by the Wrought Iron RangeCompany in the case just decided (Crenshaw v. Arkansas). In fact, the onlydifference is that the ranges were shipped to the company, bearing no marks toidentify the purchasers, and were delivered to the purchasers by the deliverymen without distinction, while the vehicles were tagged at Memphis, and uponarrival in Arkansas were delivered by the delivery men to the purchasers whosenames appeared upon the tags attached to the vehicles. This is merely a matterof detail in the manner in which the business is conducted, and does not affectits character. The decision in Crenshaw v. Arkansas, supra, has dealt withprecisely the same statute and substantially the same facts, and controls thepresent cases.

4 The judgments of the Supreme Court of Arkansas must therefore be reversed,and the cases remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistentwith this opinion.

5 Reversed.