We are of opinion that the Court below correctly interpreted the statutory provision, under and by virtue of which the defendant claimed authority to seize by its agents the property of the plaintiffs in question. In pertinent respects it {The Code, §2190) provides that “no manipulated guanos, super-phosphate or other commercial fertilizers shall be sold, or offered for sale, in this State, *442 until the manufacturer or person importing the same shall first obtain a license therefor from the Treasurer óf (he State, for which shall be paid a privilege tax of five hundred dollars per annum for each separate brand or quality. Any person, corporation or company who shall violate this chapter, or who shall sell, or offer for sale, any such fertilizer, contrary to the provision above set forth, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. And all fertilizers so sold, or offered for sale shall be subject to seizure and condemnation,” &o. It must be observed that the inhibition of this provision is clearly expressed in plain terms, and extends only to the sale of such fertilizers and the offering them for sale in this State, without first having obtained a license so to do as prescribed It does not extend to the use of them in this State, or the purchase of them in another State to be used for fertilizing purposes by the purchaser himself- in this State. The terms employed in the section of the statute recited above and in every section of the chapter, pertinent of which it is a part, unmistakably imply and refer to the sale of such fertilizer, and in the offering of them for sale in this State. Nothing appears by terms or by reasonable implication in the statute that at all forbids the mere use of them, or the put chase of them in another Slate to be used by the purchaser himself. Indeed, the statute (The Code, §2203) seems to contemplate that farmers and others may so purchase them. It provides that “any farmer or other person who may buy without the State any commercial fertilizer on which the privilege tax of five hundred dollars has been paid, shall be required to report all such purchases to the Register of Deeds of his county,” &c. It thus appears that the Legislature did not intend to forbid such purchases. This clause of the statute is peculiar. Why it specifies such purchases of fertilizers, on which the license tax has been paid, and requires the same to be reported does not appear. The provision seems to be imperfect, and, *443 as it appears, serves no practical purpose. It is brought forward in The Code as part of the statute (Acts 1876-77, ch., 274, §20), but the latter statute required farmers and others making such purchases in another State to pay “ the privilege tax of fifty cents per ton as required of dealers.” This requirement is omitted from the statute as it now prevails. Why this is so, as we have said, does not appear. It seems that the purpose at first was to encourage farmers and others to patronize such dealers in fertilzers as had paid the license tax. But whatever may have been the purpose of the statutory provision last above recited, it goes to show that it was expected that farmers and others might make purchases of fertilizer for their own use in other States.

In the case before us the plaintiffs did not severally or collectively sell, or offer for sale, in this State, their fertilizer seized by the defendant’s agents. They purchased the same in the State of Maryland, to be used by them respectively in this State, not for resale, but upon their farms. This, for the reasons above stated, they might in good faith do.

It is not alleged or suggested that the plaintiff's, or anjr of them, sought in any way or respect to evade the statute cited. If they had done so, the case would be very different. One of "them could not buy fertilizers in another State to re-sell the same to the others in this State, nor could one of them be the agent of a non-resident dealer in such goods, to sell to farmers and others in this State. Each of them could buy such fertilizers by himself, or’in good faith by his agent, in another State, for his own use only in this State. All arrangements and devices to evade the statute are violations of it. If the defendant’s agents had reason 1o believe that the plaintiff's, in the purchases they made, acted in bad faith— evasively — they should have so alleged and proved. So far as appears, they acted in good faith and did what they had a right to do.

*444 It was said on the argument, that if the plaintiffs could so purchase fertilizers in another State and bring them into this State for their own use, the statute would not serve, in great measure, the purposes contemplated by it. If it be granted that this is so, the Legislature alone can provide the remedy. Certainly this Court cannot. The purpose of the statute, as expressed in it, is too clear, it seems to us, to admit of question.

What we have said disposes of the case, and we need not advert to other serious questions raised by the assignments of error, and discussed on the argument.

Judgment affirmed.