Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/431

 Arunent for Plath% in Error. had become dormant, while both parties were recognizing their binding obl'gation and doing all that the law permitted, to effect their satisfaction, and had entered into a contract which prevented the judgment creditors from taking step to avail themselves of their right to collect their judgments by execution or by writ of mandamns. For the reasons the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma Territory is Reversed, and the cause remanded to the Supreme Court o[ the State of Oklahoma ]or ]urther proceedinqs in accordance with this elfinion. WARE AND LELAND v. MOBILE COUNTY. WARE AkND LELAND v. STATE OF ALABAM-A . ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA. No 17, 17& Submitrod Maroh 10.1908.--Dtdmi Ail 6,1. Contracts for sales of cotton for future delivery, xhich do not oblige inter- state shipments, are not subjects of interstate commerce, nor does the fact that a delivery may be made by means of interstate carriage maim them so; and a state tax on persons engaged in buying and sellJag cotton for future delivery held in this cae not to be a regulation of interstate commerce and as such beyond the power of the State. Paul �. Virginia (insurance policy case), 8 Wall. 168, followed; Loff.! Cas, 188 U.S. 21; Pa'ck v. Penmylm'a, 203 U.S. 507, distinguished. 146 Alabama, 163, affirmed. facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Burwel? Boykin Boone for plaintiffs in error: The license tax in question, sought to be collected from the plaintiffs in error, is a burden upon and a regulation of inter- state commcrcc, and in conflict with Article I, Section 8, pars-

�