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-
�
