Payne v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 112 (1918)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
Payne v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 112 (1918)Payne v. Kansas
No. 49
Argued November 15, 1918
Decided December 9, 1918
248 U.S. 112
Syllabus
A state law forbidding sale of farm produce on commission without a license, to be procured upon a proper showing as to character, responsibility, etc., a bond conditioned to make honest accounting, and payment of a fee of ten dollars, held consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.
98 Kan. 465 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Opinions
U.S. Supreme Court
Payne v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 112 (1918) Payne v. Kansas No. 49 Argued November 15, 1918 Decided December 9, 1918 248 U.S. 112 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus A state law forbidding sale of farm produce on commission without a license, to be procured upon a proper showing as to character, responsibility, etc., a bond conditioned to make honest accounting, and payment of a fee of ten dollars, held consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. 98 Kan. 465 affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. Memorandum opinion by MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS. The validity of c. 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. Page 248 U. S. 113 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. 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; Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U. S. 340; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590. The judgment of the court below is Affirmed.
Search This Case