Payne v. Kansas Ex Rel. Brewster

248 U.S. 112, 39 S. Ct. 32, 63 L. Ed. 153, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1696
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 9, 1918
Docket49
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 248 U.S. 112 (Payne v. Kansas Ex Rel. Brewster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Payne v. Kansas Ex Rel. Brewster, 248 U.S. 112, 39 S. Ct. 32, 63 L. Ed. 153, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1696 (1918).

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 accountings A fee.of ten dollars is required.

*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 Co., 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gould v. Crawley
Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2025
State v. Phipps
Supreme Court of Kansas, 2025
Moeder v. U.S.D. No. 512
Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2024
Baker v. Hayden
490 P.3d 1164 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2021)
In re Bradley Trust
Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2021
Kansas Building Industry Workers Compensation Fund v. State
359 P.3d 33 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2015)
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Sebelius
179 P.3d 366 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2008)
Excel Corp. v. Jimenez
7 P.3d 1118 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2000)
Attorney General Opinion No.
Kansas Attorney General Reports, 1997
State v. Harkaway
192 A.2d 619 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1963)
National Surety Corp. v. Kruse
192 P.2d 317 (Montana Supreme Court, 1948)
Nelsen v. Tilley
289 N.W. 388 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1939)
State v. Maitrejean
192 So. 361 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1939)
In Re Willing
86 P.2d 663 (California Supreme Court, 1939)
Jacobs v. Mayor of Baltimore
191 A. 421 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1937)
Polk Co. v. Mayo
299 U.S. 507 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Mayo v. the Polk Co.
169 So. 41 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Franklin v. State Ex Rel. Alabama State Milk Control Board
169 So. 295 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
City of Tucson v. Stewart
40 P.2d 72 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 U.S. 112, 39 S. Ct. 32, 63 L. Ed. 153, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-kansas-ex-rel-brewster-scotus-1918.