110 BULLETIN 110 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
poration that is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. 47 As 
a part of interstate commerce, a corporation of one State has the 
right to ship goods into another State and there sell them in the 
original packages without the leave or license of that State. Again, 
a corporation of one State may purchase goods in one State for 
shipment to another without the consent of the latter State. 48 The 
doing of a single isolated act or transaction does not constitute doing 
business in a State. 49 
It is immaterial how a cooperative association markets its products 
in another State provided they are sold in the original packages 
or are shipped into the State in response to orders previously 
obtained for them. 50 
In a leading case decided by the United States Supreme Court 51 
it appeared that the State of Michigan imposed an annual tax of 
$300 upon the business of selling brewed or malt liquors. Citizens 
of Wisconsin, engaged in manufacturing such liquors in that State, 
owned a warehouse in Michigan to which they shipped, and in which 
they stored their liquor for sale in the original packages. Neither 
they nor their agent paid the tax, but the agent sold the liquor and 
was arrested and convicted for a violation of the law. The Supreme 
Court, in holding that the State of Michigan did not have the right 
to impose the tax, either on the citizens of Wisconsin or upon their 
agent in Michigan, said : 
We have repeatedly held that no State has the right to lay a tax on interstate 
commerce in any form, whether by way of duties laid on the transportation of 
the subjects of that commerce, or on the receipts derived from that trans- 
portation, or on the occupation or business of carrying it on, for the reason 
that such taxation is a burden on that commerce, and amounts to a regula- 
tion of it, which belongs solely to Congress. 
In another case, 52 the Supreme Court of the United States said : 
We have repeatedly decided that a State law is unconstitutional and void 
which requires a party to take out a license for carrying on interstate 
commerce. 
It will be appreciated that the term " original packages " refers to 
the barrels, boxes, or other containers in which substantial quantities 
of the product involved are transported. 
Entirely independent, apparently, of the fact that interstate com- 
merce was involved, a number of the supreme courts have held that 
a foreign corporation was not doing business in the State when, it 
appeared that the foreign corporation consigned products to a com- 
mission merchant or factor in the State to be sold by him. 53 These 
cases apparently were decided upon the theory that it was the factor 
or commission man that was engaged in business in that State and 
not the foreign corporation. 
It is submitted that a cooperative association formed in one State, 
that is marketing the products which it handles in another, can not 
« Dahnke- Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant. 257 U. S. 282, 42 S. Ct. 106. 
48 Dahnke- Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282, 42 S. Ct. 106. 
49 Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727. 
50 Caldwell v. North Carolina. 187 U. S. 622. 
^Lvng v. Michigan, 135 U. S. J 61. 
« Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 58. 
53 Allen v. Tyson-Jones Bucgy Co., 91 Tex. 22. 40 S. W. 393: In re Hovey's Estate. 9 
Pa. Dist. Rep. 183, affirmed in 198 Pa. 3S5, 4S A. 311 ; Cooper Rubber Co. v. Johnson. 133 
Tenn. 562, 182 S. W. 593 ; Bertha Zinc & Mineral Co. v. Clute, 7 Misc. Rep. 123, 27 
N. Y. S. 342 ; Badische Lederwerke v. Capitelli, 155 N. Y. S. 651. 
