Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Illinois ex rel. McLaughlin,
298 U.S. 155 (1936)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Illinois ex rel. McLaughlin, 298 U.S. 155 (1936)

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Illinois ex rel. McLaughlin

No. 692

Argued March 31, 1936

Decided April 27, 1936

298 U.S. 155


1. State regulation of the business of commission merchants who solicit consignments of farm produce from within and without the State and sell them locally on commission affects interstate commerce only indirectly, and is within the police power, in the absence of conflicting regulation by Congress. P. 298 U. S. 157.

2. An Illinois statute requiring that commission merchants who solicit for sale and sell within the State consignments of farm produce, including fresh fruit and vegetables consigned from outside the State, shall procure a license, post a bond, keep records, and account and pay for produce received for sale, held not inconsistent with the Act of Congress of June 10, 1930, which requires those who are engaged in the business of receiving in interstate or foreign commerce fresh fruits and vegetables, for sale on commission, to procure a license from the Secretary of Agriculture, and

Page 298 U. S. 156

which covers in part the same ground as the Illinois law, but which does not require a bond and expressly declares that state statutes dealing with the same subjects as the federal Act shall remain in effect except insofar as they are inconsistent with it. P. 298 U. S. 158.

361 Ill. 405, 198 N.E. 356, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment sustaining a judgment in favor of the Director of Agriculture of the Illinois, in consolidated actions on two bonds, given by a commission merchant pursuant to an Illinois statute for the security of consignors of farm produce. The surety took the appeal, severing the principal, which had become bankrupt.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.