Court Opinion

ID: 9809173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:02:56.997739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:23.650953
License: Public Domain

CiARK, O. J.,
concurring: The liquor was- shipped from Richmond, Va., by A. Hatke & Co., wholesale whiskey dealers in that city, consigned to themselves at New Bern, N. C. On its arrival at New Bern the interstate dealing was completed. Any subsequent act to transfer the whiskey from Hatke & Co. to Carl Spencer, and the receipt of money from Spencer by Ilatke’s agent, was a transaction in this State forbidden by our statute. In Delamater v. South Dakota, 205 U. S., 93, it was held that, “Since the enactment of the Wilson law, which expressly provides that intoxicating- liquors coming into a State should be as completely under the control of the State a's though manufactured therein, the owner of intoxicating liquors in one State cannot, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, *121go himself or send his agent into another State and in defiance of its laws carry on the business of soliciting proposals for the purchase of such liquors.” If it is a violation of State law for Hatke through an agent to solicit a buyer for his liquor, it follows that he could not after the arrival of the liquor here, through an agent, dispose of it to Spencer and receive payment therefor without being liable to an action under Eevisal, 3525.
. While the act is an intrastate act, our statute, Eevisal, 3525, gives an action for damages only against the “dealer” in intoxicating liquors. It is not like a statute making such act a misdemeanor, for in that case those aiding and abetting are equally guilty. Our statute gives an action against the dealer only, and hence the demurrer was properly sustained. If, however, the plaintiff could obtain service upon Hatke by attachment of' property or otherwise, the action would lie against him under our statutes.