“ A corporation of one state may go into another, without obtaining the leave or license of the latter, for all the legitimate purposes of such commerce; and any statute of the latter state which obstructs or lays a burden on the exercise of this privilege is void under the commerce clause. ”

“ But the delivery was to be on board the cars of a common carrier, and the plaintiff intended to ship the wheat to its mill in Tennessee. A small part of the crop was delivered as agreed, but delivery of the rest was refused, although the plaintiff was prepared and expecting to receive and pay for it. A payment advanced on the crop more than covered what was delivered. At the time for delivery wheat had come to be worth several cents per bushel more than the price fixed by the contract. The action was brought in a state court in Kentucky. ”

“ If this court should conclude that the contract is any part of interstate commerce, the judgment of the Kentucky Court of Appeals must be reversed; otherwise it should be affirmed.'
A party's conception or characterization of the question presented by the record is, of course, not conclusive of his right to a review. The right is determined by the record. But in this case the record confirms the plaintiff's conception of the question submitted for review. ”

“ Ct. 331, 57 L. Ed. 594, hold that the validity of an authority is not drawn in question where the controversy is confined to determining whether the facts upon which a person can exercise that authority do or do not exist; and the writs of error were dismissed because the validity was not 'drawn in question' in the sense in which that phrase is used in the statute; that is, brought forward or made a ground of decision. ”

“ The essential character of the transaction as otherwise fixed is not changed by a mere possibility of that sort. See United Fuel Gas Co. v. Hallanan, supra.
For these reasons we are of opinion that the transaction was a part of interstate commerce, in which the planitiff lawfully could engage without any permission from the state of Kentucky, and that the statute in question, which concededly imposed burdensome conditions, was as to that transaction invalid because repugnant to the commerce clause. ”

“ Where goods in one state are transported into another for purposes of sale, the commerce does not end with the transportation, but embraces as well the sale of the goods after they reach their destination and while they are in the original packages. ”

“ This was an action to recover damages for the breach of a contract for the sale and delivery of a crop of wheat estimated at 14,000 bushels. The plaintiff was a Tennessee corporation engaged in operating a flour and feed mill at Union City, in that state. The defendant was a resident of Hickman, Ky., and extensively engaged in farming in that vicinity. They were the parties to the contract. It was made at Hickman and the wheat was to be delivered and paid for there. ”

“ Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Brown, 187 U.S. 308, 311, 23 Sup. Ct. 123, 47 L. Ed. 190; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U.S. 182, 184, 39 Sup. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. 550. Compare Blumenstock Bros. v. Curtis Publishing Co., 252 U.S. 436, 441, 40 Sup. Ct. 385, 64 L. Ed. 649. Nor was the power to enact section 571 as construed actually denied. The question decided below and presented for review here is merely whether this valid statute has been so used not construed-as to deny to the plaintiff a privilege or immunity guaranteed by the federal Constitution. ”

“ On the same principle, where goods are purchased in one state for transportation to another, the commerce includes the purchase quite as much as it does the transportation. American Express Co. v. Iowa, 196 U.S. 133, 143, 25 Sup. Ct. 182, 19 L. Ed. 417. This has been recognized in many decisions construing the commerce clause. Thus it was said in Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275, 280, 23 L. Ed. 347:
"Commerce' is a term of the largest import. ”

“ People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 38 Sup. Ct. 233, 62 L. Ed. 587, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 537, and Chipman, Limited, v. Jeffrey Co., 251 U.S. 373, 40 Sup. Ct. 172, 64 L. Ed. 314; as illustrating the issues involved.↑ Union Pac. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 248 U.S. 67, 39 Sup. Ct. 24, 63 L. Ed. 131; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 249 U.S. 422, 39 Sup. Ct. 345, 63 L. Ed. 684; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Ochs, 249 U.S. 416, 39 Sup. Ct. 343, 63 L. Ed. 679; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. ”