Rossi v. Pennsylvania

Citations

• 238 U.S. 62
• 35 S. Ct. 677
• 59 L. Ed. 1201
• 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1643

Syllabus

<p>A State may not punish one who sells and delivers liquor in original packages within the State pursuant to orders solicited within the State but delivered from without the State, under the circumstances of this ease which arose prior to the Webb-Kenyon Law.</p> <p>The transportation of intoxicating liquor, as of other merchandise, from . State to State is interstate commerce and cannot be interfered with by the States except as permitted' by Congress.</p> <p>The Wilson Act of 1890, while placing liquor on arrival at destination under the law of the State, does not subject liquor transported in interstate commerce to state regulation until after arrival at destina- . tion and delivery to the consignee or purchaser.</p> <p>Under the Wilson Act the power of the State does not extend to a shipment ,of liquor prior to delivery to the purchaser because it was transmitted in pursuance of an. order previously obtained within the State, ' where, as in Pennsylvania, there is no statute prohibiting the solicitation and taking of such orders for liquor without a license. Dekmater v. South Dakota, 205 U. S. 93, distinguished.</p> <p>53 Pa. Sup. Ct. 210, reversed.</p>