The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-03-14
SAMPLE MERCHANTS.
THE CASE OF WHITE DECIDED
JUDGMENT of the Hastings Court OF hichmond
Afrirmed-what Constitutes q Commereial
Broker Under the Law.

Affirmed-What Constitutes Commereial
Broker Under the Law.
The Court Of Appeals yesterday decided
the case OF Whyte rs. The Commonwealth,
from the Hastings Court OF TINS clty, In
which the main question was whetner a
licensed sample-merchant Is privileged to
sell goods other than his own. The follow
ing Is an extract from the opinion oil the
court. delivered by Judge Lewis:
"Any person." says the statute, "who
shall sell or offer to sell any description OF
goods. wares, or merchandise. by sample,
card, description. or other representation,
verbal or otherwise. snail he
deemed a sample-merchant." Ordinarily
power to sell implies ownership OF the
goods on the part OF the person by whom
they are sold or offered for sale. There
are some exceptions, however, rs in the
case OF commission merchant, as we
have seen, who is expressly authorized to
sell, with some exceptions, any kind OF
goods or personal property left with or
consigned to him for sale. But there is
nothing in the statute from which it can
be fairly inferred that the privilege to sell
the goods Of other persons was intended
to be conferred on sample merchants.
Subject to the exceptions contained in the
act they may sell any description Of goods.
wares. or merchandise anywhere within
the State to manufacturer or licensed
merchant. or keeper Of an ordinary or
eating-house. But this language applies
not to the ownership, but to the character
Of the goods sold, and when construed. as
il must be, in connection with other pro-
visions OF the act, we think it manifests an
intention on the part OF the Legisa-
ture TO confinc the sales OF sample
merchants to their own goods. Thus Ii
ccnsed merchant. and so the manufac-
turer, who has paid license-taX Of not less
than $3.50, may, either by himself or bis
agents, sell hy sample, but not the goods OF
others. The merchant, as we have seen, is
licensed to sell his own purchases, and the
act does not extend the privilege TO the
sales Of goods other than his own when,
having paid the requisite amount OF Ii
cense.taX. he is authorized to sell by SAM
pie. And in this particular the Legislature
hardly intended to place on a more favored
footing than the merchant or the manufac-
turer the sample merchant. who is gene
rally nonresident, and who, unlike the
merchant and manufacturer, contributes
nothing to the material interests or ad-
vancement OF the State.
This view is further sustained by the
provisions OF section GA OF the act, which
is as follows; "No person shall without
license authorized by Law act aS a
commercial broker. Every person who
negOtiates the sale OF meFchan-
disc without having possession or control
Of it as commission merchants have shall
he deemed 4 commercial broker"
Why enact this section defining a CONNER
cial broker and imposing a tax for re-
gOtiatiDg the sale OF merchandise, as
therein provided, il the Legislature in
tended by previous sections OF the act
to confer on licensed sample merchants
the privilege OF selling merchandise
Of which they have neither possession or
control! In the present case the goods
sold by the defendant were not owned by,
nor were they in the possession or control
Of. his principals, ). Dealham n Son,
licensed sample merchants, but were owned
by and were in the possession OF Samuel
Whyte & Co., Of Baltimore, and were.
therefore, sold without proper license as
required by law.
The judgment of the Hastings Court is
affirmed.
COMMERCIAL BROKERS.
The case of Henderson rs. The Common
wealth, from the same court, was also de-
cided, in which Judge Lewis also deliver
ed the opinion, as follows: We have Just
decided, in Whyte rs. The Commonwealth,
that the privilege conferred by a sample
merchants license does not extend to the
sale Of goods other than his own. In this
case the plaintiff in error was licensed
sample merchant. He was indicted and
convicted for doing business without Ii
cense as a commercial broker; and the
single question is, whether, upon the facts
agreed and certified in the record, he was
engaged in that business within the mean
ing Of the revenue laws! The statute pro-
yides: " Every person who negotiaie'
the sale OF merchandise without having
possession or control of it Us commission
merchants have, shall $50 be deemed a
commercial brOker."-Ac.s 1SSl-'S2, pages
5234.
Ii appears that the deiendment was en-
gagged in selling by sample meats. lard. and
other similar articles. on commission, which
were shipped as sales were made from va
rious firms in and outside OF the State. He
occupied desk in the Office OF j. ). Moore,
OF this city, where he conducted his CORE
spondence, and it does not appear that he
had any other place Of business. None OF
the goods sold were at any time in his pos
session or control, but were shipped di-
rectly from the owners to the purchasers; (;
nor did he have any interest in them other
than his commissions on the sales when
made. He was therefore engaged in negO-
tiating the sale OF merchandise without
having possession or control Of it as com
mission merchants have, or, in other words,
in dong business as a commercial broker,
and the Hastings Court properly so held.
The judgment is affirmed.