Supreme Court of the United States, 1918

Payne v. Kansas Ex Rel. Brewster

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 9, 1918 · McReynolds

248 U.S. 112; 39 S. Ct. 32; 63 L. Ed. 153; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1696 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Ray Campbell, with whom Mr. J. Graham Campbell was on the brief, for plaintiffs in error., Mr. J. L. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General of the State of Kansas, with whom Mr. S. M. Brewster, Attorney General of the State of Kansas, Mr. S. N. Hawkes and Mr '.' T. F. Railsback, Assistant Attorneys General of the State of Kansas, were on the brief, for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Sebelius (Kan. 2008)
Excel Corp. v. Jimenez (Kan. 2000)
State v. Phipps (Kan. 2025)
Gould v. Crawley (Kan. Ct. App. 2025)
Moeder v. U.S.D. No. 512 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024)
In re Bradley Trust (Kan. Ct. App. 2021)
Baker v. Hayden (Kan. 2021)
Kansas Building Industry Workers Compensation Fund v. State (Kan. 2015)
State Ex Rel. Tomasic v. UNIFIED GOV. OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS CITY (Kan. 1998)
National Surety Corp. v. Kruse (Mont. 1948)
State v. Maitrejean (La. 1939)
Nelsen v. Tilley (Neb. 1939)
Jacobs v. Mayor of Baltimore (Md. 1937)
City of Newnan v. Atlanta Laundries Inc. (Ga. 1932)
Franklin v. State Ex Rel. Alabama State Milk Control Board (Ala. 1936)
Mayo v. the Polk Co. (Fla. 1936)
City of Tucson v. Stewart (Ariz. 1935)
Penquite v. Dunn (Kan. 1927)
State v. Harkaway (N.H. 1963)
In re Willing (Cal. 1939)
Polk Co. v. Mayo (Supreme Court of the United States 1936)
Jaarda v. Van Ommen (Mich. 1934)
People v. Bratowsky (New York City Magistrates' Court 1934)
People v. Nebbia (N.Y. 1933)
People v. Perretta (N.Y. 1930)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.