interstate commerce clause in Missouri

2002Id. at 909 .

1989Principal reliance is placed on the decision in Kayser Roth Company v. Holmes, 693 S.W.2d 907 (Mo.App.1985), in which the court found that Kayser Roth was not barred from suing on an account as a non-registered foreign corporation because its business was conducted in Missouri under the interstate commerce exception.

1907We think it is too clear for discussion that the portrait company shipped the picture frames into this State to the defendant, its agent, without having any valid contract with the several purchasers of the pictures, and that the contract and sale by the defendant, of the frames to the several purchasers, was a Missouri contract and not one falling under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. [State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 241 ; State v. Smithson, 106 Mo. 149 ; Hynes v. Briggs, 41 Fed. l. c. 470.] Accordingly, it must be ruled that the defendant- was not exempt from taking out a license

1906Several appeals in identical cases have been taken to the Supreme Court and retained by it. [State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 241 , 15 S. W. 81 ; State v. Smithson, 106 Mo. 149 , 17 S. W. 221 ; State v. Parsons, 124 Mo. 436 , 27 S. W. 1102 .] Ordered transferred to the Supreme Court for decision.

1907We think it is too clear for discussion that the portrait company shipped the picture frames into this State to the defendant, its agent, without having any valid contract with the several purchasers of the pictures, and that the contract and sale by the defendant, of the frames to the several purchasers, was a Missouri contract and not one falling under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. [State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 241 ; State v. Smithson, 106 Mo. 149 ; Hynes v. Briggs, 41 Fed. l. c. 470.] Accordingly, it must be ruled that the defendant- was not exempt from taking out a license

1906Several appeals in identical cases have been taken to the Supreme Court and retained by it. [State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 241 , 15 S. W. 81 ; State v. Smithson, 106 Mo. 149 , 17 S. W. 221 ; State v. Parsons, 124 Mo. 436 , 27 S. W. 1102 .] Ordered transferred to the Supreme Court for decision.

2002Beeman also argues that the trial court erred in finding that “whatever contacts that corporation had with Beeman were incidental to interstate, well also international commerce.” Beeman contends that allowing OES to avail itself of Missouri courts under the interstate commerce exception included in § 351.572.2(8) would be in opposite to the holding of Campaign Works Ltd., 779 S.W.2d 305 .

1958In State v. McNeary, 88 Mo. 143 , we held that we did not have jurisdiction (on the ground that the construction of the revenue laws was involved) of a conviction of .misdetpeanor for keeping a dram-shop without a license in violation of the law of'the state.

1919That the transmission of messages from State to State by paeans of telegraph is commerce among the several states, and therefore subject to regulation by Congress under the power granted in Section 8 of the First article of the Federal Constitution, is unquestioned. [Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1 ; Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650 .] It is equally well settled that the character of these carriers as instruments of interstate commerce does not

1919That the transmission of messages from State to State by paeans of telegraph is commerce among the several states, and therefore subject to regulation by Congress under the power granted in Section 8 of the First article of the Federal Constitution, is unquestioned. [Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1 ; Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650 .] It is equally well settled that the character of these carriers as instruments of interstate commerce does not

1919That the transmission of messages from State to State by paeans of telegraph is commerce among the several states, and therefore subject to regulation by Congress under the power granted in Section 8 of the First article of the Federal Constitution, is unquestioned. [Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1 ; Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650 .] It is equally well settled that the character of these carriers as instruments of interstate commerce does not

1919That the transmission of messages from State to State by paeans of telegraph is commerce among the several states, and therefore subject to regulation by Congress under the power granted in Section 8 of the First article of the Federal Constitution, is unquestioned. [Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1 ; Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650 .] It is equally well settled that the character of these carriers as instruments of interstate commerce does not

1911Upon such a state of facts, this court, in the case of State v. Railroad, supra, held that the Act of 1907, Laws 1907, p. 332, was violative of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, -and was therefore absolutely null and void.

1907In City of Laurens v. Elmore, 33 S. E. 560 , an agent of the same portrait company was prosecuted for violation of the ordinance of said city and the same contract or memorandum of the Chicago Portrait Company was in issue, and the majority of the court held that the city could not impose a. special license on the agent and that the ordinance was in conflict with the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

1906Several appeals in identical cases have been taken to the Supreme Court and retained by it. [State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 241 , 15 S. W. 81 ; State v. Smithson, 106 Mo. 149 , 17 S. W. 221 ; State v. Parsons, 124 Mo. 436 , 27 S. W. 1102 .] Ordered transferred to the Supreme Court for decision.

1906Several appeals in identical cases have been taken to the Supreme Court and retained by it. [State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 241 , 15 S. W. 81 ; State v. Smithson, 106 Mo. 149 , 17 S. W. 221 ; State v. Parsons, 124 Mo. 436 , 27 S. W. 1102 .] Ordered transferred to the Supreme Court for decision.

1906It is as follows: ‘1 That all fermented, distilled or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any State or Territory or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale of storage therein, shall upon arrival in such State or Territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise.”

1906In Geer v. Connecticut, supra, it was held that a shipment of game, lawfully killed in that State, to a point beyond the limits of the State, in violation of the game law of the State, was not without the force of such statute upon the ground that the State law was a violation of the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.