Charlton Silk Co. v. Jones
CHARLTON SILK COMPANY, Appellant, v. JOHN R. JONES, Special Administrator, Etc., Respondents
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco
- Trial judge
- John J. Van Nostrand
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Curtis D. Wilbur (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Wilbur
WILBUR, C. J.— This is an action to recover the purchase price of goods, wares and merchandise. The action was begun June 27, 1910, before the enactment of the Statutes of 1917 (Stats. 1917, p. 381) repealing sections 405, 406, 408, 409 and 410 of the Civil Code. The court found that the plaintiff’s principal place of business was the city of Chicago, state of Illinois, where it was engaged in the manufacture and sale of dry-goods at wholesale.
“That the plaintiff sent out traveling salesmen to California and said traveling salesmen solicited and received orders for merchandise and sent said orders to the plaintiff in Chicago, and the goods so ordered were then shipped by the plaintiff to its customers in California.”
This finding establishes the fact that the business done was in interstate commerce and that, therefore, the provisions of sections 405 et seq., Civil Code, do not apply because the right to collect the proceeds of interstate commerce was incidental thereto and cannot be prevented by state legislation (Sioux Remedy Co.
v. Cope, 235 U. S. 197 [59 L. Ed. 193, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes];
W.
W.
Kimball Co.
v. Read, 43 Cal. App. 342 [185 Pac.
192]; Moon v. Martin, 185 Cal. 361).
Judgment reversed.
Lawlor, J., Kerrigan, J., Seawell, J., Myers, J., and Waste, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Moon v. Martin L. A. No. 6477. · 1921-03-28
- W. W. Kimball Co. v. Read Civ. No. 2919. · 1919-09-22
Cited by
- Detsch & Co. v. Calbar, Inc. Civ. 21341 · 1964-07-22
- Thorner v. Selective Cam Transmission Co. Civ. 18705 · 1960-04-20
- Proctor & Schwartz v. Superior Court of San Mateo County Civ. 14541 · 1950-09-12