Payne v. State of Kansas Ex Rel. Brewster, Atty. Gen
Administrative Proceeding Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. 49

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Request Update Request UpdateSpaceE-Mail Alert Get E-Mail Alerts

  Text Tab Overlap Citations (3) Tab Overlap Cited By (7) Right End

248 U.S. 112

39 S.Ct. 32

63 L.Ed. 153

PAYNE et al.
v.
STATE of KANSAS ex rel. BREWSTER, Atty. Gen.

No. 49.

Argued Nov. 15, 1918.

Decided Dec. 9, 1918.

Mr. Ray Campbell, of Wichita, Kan., for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. J. L. Hunt and James P. Coleman, both of Topeka, Kan., and T. F. Railsback, of Kansas City, Kan., for defendant in error.

Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS.

1

The validity of chapter 371, Laws of Kansas 1915—'An act in relation to the sale of farm produce on commission'—is challenged by certain grain dealers carrying on business in that state. It forbids the sale of farm produce on commission without an annual license, to be procured from the State Board of Agriculture upon a proper showing as to character, responsibility, etc., and a bond conditioned to make honest accounting. A fee of $10 is required.

2

Plaintiffs in error maintain that the statute is class legislation which abridges their rights and privileges, that it deprives them of the equal protection of the laws and also of their property without due process of law—all in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3

Manifestly, the purpose of the state was to prevent certain evils incident to the business of commission merchants in farm products by regulating it. Many former opinions have pointed out the limitations upon powers of the states concerning matters of this kind and we think the present record fails to show that these limitations have been transcended. Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis, 240 U. S. 342, 36 Sup. Ct. 370, 60 L. Ed. 679, L. R. A. 1917A, 421, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U. S. 340, 36 Sup. Ct. 561, 60 L. Ed. 1034, Ann Cas. 1917C, 522; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590, 37 Sup. Ct. 662, 61 L. Ed. 1336, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. ,1917D, 973.

4

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Statistics

This case has been viewed 50 times.

No comments have been added yet. Sign in to post a comment.
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?