PAYNE ET AL.
v.
STATE OF KANSAS EX REL. BREWSTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL

U.S. | 1918-12-09
No. 49
248 U.S. 112 Supreme Court of the United States (1918) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 63 L. Ed. 153 · 39 S. Ct. 32 · 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1696 · SCDB 1918-019
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Kansas's licensing statute regulating the sale of farm produce on commission was upheld against grain dealers' constitutional challenges. The Court held that the statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses, finding that the state's regulatory scheme was a valid exercise of its police power to prevent evils associated with commission merchant dealings in farm products.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McReynolds.

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. 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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Mayo v. The Polk Co., 124 Fla. 534 (Fla. 1936)
    …ights must be modified by the police power. The following cases are relied on by appellant. They have been examined and some of them rule the identical point raised here. Others are persuasive. Payne v. Kansas, ex rel. Brewster (Kan.), 158 Pac. 408, 248 U. S. 112, 39 Sup. Ct. 32, 63 L. Ed. 153; State v. Walter Bowen & Co., 86 Wash. 23, 149 Pac. 330; State, ex rel. Beek, v. Wagener, 77 Minn. 483, 80 N. W. 633, 778, 1134; Reaves Warehouse Corporation v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 194, 126 S. E. 87, Danville Warehou…
    1 / 2
  • Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-Operative Mktg. Ass'n, 276 U.S. 71 (U.S. 1928)
  • Polk Co. v. Mayo, 299 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1936)
    …Per Curiam: The motion for leave to amend the statement as to jurisdiction is granted. The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, 188; Payne v. Kansas, 248 U. S. 112; Arnold v. Hanna, 276 U. S. 591; cf. Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52, 61, 62.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw