Payne Vs. Kansas

Payne vs Kansas

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Dec-09-1918

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/92753

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/92753
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Dec-09-1918
Case Number: 248 U.S. 112
Subject: Sales Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Sales Tax

Key legal issue: Sales Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Payne

Respondent

Kansas

Excerpt

.....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 mc reynolds. 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.

Full Judgment

Payne v. Kansas - 248 U.S. 112 (1918)
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 Mc REYNOLDS.

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.

Same Parties Payne vs Kansas Same Subject Sales Tax