s00 U.B. Oi?n?m of tl? Oolm. the subject of interstate commerce; and concerning such of the contracts for purchases for future delivery, as result in actual delivery of the grain or cotton, the stipulated facts show that when the orders transmitted are received in the foreign State the property is bought in that State and there held for the purchaser. The transaction was thus closed by a contract completed and oxecuted in the foreign State, although the orders were received from another State. When the de- livery was upon a contract of sale made by the broker, the seller was at liberty to acquire the cotton in the market where the delivery was required or elsewhere. He did not contract to ship it from one State to the place of delivery in another State. And though it is stipulated that shipments were made from Alabama to the foreign State in some instances, that was not because of any contractual obhgation so to do. In neither class of contracts, for sale or purchase, was there necessarily any movement of commodities in interstate traffic, because of the contracts made by the brokers. These contracts are not, therefore, the subjects of interstate commerce, any more than in the insurance cases, where the policies are ordered and delivered in another State than that of the residence and office of the company. The delivery, when one was made, was not because of any contract obliging an interstate shipment, and the fact that the purchaser might thereafter transmit the subject-matter of purahase by means of in?rstate carriage did not make the contracts ns made and executed the subjects of interstate commerce. We are of the opinion that the Supreme Court of Alabama correctly hsld that the transactions of the plaintiffs in error were not interstate commerce, and the judgments in both A/firmed.
�
