Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Payne v. Kansas Ex Rel. Brewster
Payne v. Kan. Ex Rel. Brewster, 248 U.S. 112 (1918)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1918-12-09
- Topic
- general
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.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Payne v. Kansas Ex Rel. Brewster. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 36 opinions
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.