Court Opinion

ID: 8189488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 23:12:21.380605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:40:33.222822
License: Public Domain

Npon a motion for a rehearing counsel for the defendant contended, inter alia, that regarding the act of the defendant as a sale of, or an offer to¡sell, cigarette paper, it is conceded that the cigarette paper to which the sale or offer to sell referred was in another state and that the so-called sale or offer to sell'contemplated its transportation into this state for delivery in consummation of the sale or offer. This made it an act of interstate commerce. U. S. v. Swift & Co. 122 Fed. 529; Swift & Co. v. U. S. 196 U. S. 375; U. S. v. Addyston P. & S. Co. 85 Fed. 271, 294, 29 C. C. A. 141, 46 L. R. A. 122; *584Robbins v. Shelby Co. Tax. Dist. 120 U. S. 489; Butler Bros. S. Co. v. U. S. R. Co. 156 Fed. 1, 16; Miller v. Goodman, 91 Tex. 41, 40 S. W. 718, Cook v. Rome B. Co. 98 Ala. 409, 413, 12 South. 918; Ware v. Hamilton Brown S. Co. 92 Ala. 145, 9 South. 136; Culberson v. Am. T. & B. Co. 107 Ala. 457, 19 South. 34; Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727; Emert v. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296, 319; Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S. 289; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622, 632; Kehrer v. Stewart, 197 U. S. 60; State v. Trotman, 142 N. C. 662, 55 S. E. 599; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U. S. 141; Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S. 129; Ex parte Loeb, 72 Fed. 657; State v. Lagarde, 60 Fed. 186; Carstairs v. O’Donnell, 154 Mass. 357; Bloomingion v. Bourland, 137 Ill. 534; State v. Scott, 98 Tenn. 254, 39 S. W. 1, 36 L. R. A. 461; Kirkpatrick v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 459, 60 S. W. 762; French v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. 222, 58 S. W. 1015; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47.
The motion was denied March 30, 1909.