TRADER. One who makes it his business to buy merchandise, or goods and chattels, and to sell the same for the purpose of mak ing a profit. See State v. Chadbourn, 80 N. C. 481, 30 Am. Rep. 94; Sylvester v. Edge comb, 76 Me. 500. The quantum of dealing is immaterial, when an intention to deal gen erally exists; 2 C. & P. 135; 1 Term 572, The principal question is whether the per son has the intention of getting a living by his trading; if this is proved, the extent or duration of the trading is not material ; 3 Camp. 233.
Questions as to who is a trader most fre quently arise under the bankrupt laws ; and the most difficult among them are those cases where the party follows a business which is not that of buying and selling principally, but in which he is occasionally engaged in purchases and sales.
A farmer who, in addition to his usual business, occasionally buys a horse, not cal culated for his usual occupation, 'and sells him again to make a profit, and who in the course of two years had so bought and sold five or six horses, two of which had been sold, after he had bought them, for the sake of a guinea profit, was held to be a trader ; 1 Term 537, n.; 1 Price 20. Another farmer, who bought a large quantity of potatoes, not to be used on his farm, but merely to sell again for a profit, was also declared to be a trader ; 1 Stra. 513. A butcher who .
kills only such cattle as he has reared him self is not a trader, but if he buy them and kill and sell them with a view to profit, he is a trader ; 4 Burr. 21. A brickmaker who follows the business for the purpose of en joying the profits of his real estate merely is not a trader; but when he buys the earth by the load or otherwise, and manufactures it Into bricks, and sells them with a view to profit, be is a trader ; 3 C. & P. 500; so is a
brewer ; Hastings Malting Co. v. Heller, 47 Minn. 71, 49 N. W. 400; and one who is en- I gaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber is a trader; 1 B. R. 281; so is one engaged in buying and selling goods for the purpose of gain, though but occasionally; 2 id. 15; but the keeper of a livery stable is not; 3 N. Y. Leg. Ohs. 282; nor is one who buys, and sells shares; 2 Ch. App. 466.
A corporation engaged principally in oper ating hotels is not engaged principally in trading and mercantile pursuits under the bankruptcy act; it was so held where such a corporation conducted a small store as an in cident to its hotel business; an occupation that is not trading is not a mercantile pur suit; Toxaway Hotel Co. v. Smathers & Co., 216 U. S. 439, 30 Sup. Ct. 263, 54 L. Ed. 558, where the brief of counsel cites the cases in many states. The opinion of the court quotes In re Cote, Fed. Cas. No. 3,267, where Judge Lowell said the bankruptcy act was address ed to the common usage of the country and defined tradesman as "substantially the same as shopkeeper," and cites In re U. S. Hotel Co., 134 Fed. 225, 67 C. C. A. 153, 68'1, R. A. 588, as in accord and as reviewing the cases upon •the subject. A restaurateur is not a trader nor engaged in commercial pursuits; In re Excelsior Cafe Co., 175 Fed. 294; nor is a corporation engaged principally in the business of renting films for moving pic tures; In re Imperial Film Exch., 198 Fed. 80, 117 C. C. A. 188. As to what businesses are subject to the bankruptcy act, see Mat toon Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bk., 102 Fed. 728, 42 C. C. A. 4, and note.