State ex rel. Smith v. Fairmont Foods Co.
Decision Date | 22 January 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 44248,44248 |
Citation | 196 Kan. 73,410 P.2d 308 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas ex rel. Harrison SMITH, County Attorney of Finney County, Kansas, Appellee, v. FAIRMONT FOODS COMPANY, a corporation, and Ed Thorpe, Appellants. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In an injunction action by the State pursuant to K.S.A. 50-505 found in the Dairy Practices Act against a company, engaged in the dairy industry as a processor, wholesaler or distributor, and its local manager for making premium gifts to consumers of the company's milk products in violation of the provisions of K.S.A. 50-503(a), the trial court issued an injunction. On appeal by the dairy company and its local manager attacking the constitutional validity of K.S.A. 50-503(a), it is held: The provisions of the statute under attack are not unconstitutional for any of the reasons asserted by the appellants, all as more particularly set forth in the opinion.
Robert M. Duboc, Kansas City, Mo., argued the cause, and James A. Williams, Byron G. Larson and George Voss, Dodge City, and Raymond Kelly, Omaha, Neb., were with him on the brief for appellants.
Kenton C. Granger, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Atty. Gen., and Daniel J. High, County Atty., were with him on the brief for appellee.
This is an action by the State of Kansas pursuant to K.S.A. 50-505 for injunctive relief against Fairmont Foods Company and Ed Thorpe, defendants, for an alleged violation of K.S.A. 50-503(a). The trial court granted injunctive relief and the defendants have duly perfected an appeal.
The issues presented on appeal concern the constitutional validity of 50-503(a), supra.
The facts giving rise to this controversy are not in dispute.
The State of Kansas institutional this litigation against the appellants alleging that on or about the 15th day of April, 1964, they advertised, offered to give and gave free gifts, namely one quart Corning Ware sauce makers, to the retail consumers of dairy products in Garden City, Finney County, Kansas. The petition alleged that these gifts were effected through the medium of premium side panels on one-half gallon milk cartons of Fairmont Foods Company; and that these side panels were redeemable at local business establishments. The appellants have admitted the truth of the foregoing allegations except they contend that the sauce makers constitute premiums and not free gifts as alleged in the petition. The parties stipulated that the sauce makers cost Fairmont Foods Company $2.10 each; that they have a retail value of approximately $3.50 each. They attached as an exhibit to their stipulations a true copy of one of the side panels in question. (65 one-half gallon special side panels can be presented to one of the designated redemption centers for a sauce maker.)
The petition further alleged that the foregoing conduct of the appellants violated K.S.A. 50-503(a) and sought injunctive relief.
By the various pleadings the appellants have consistently challenged the constitutionality of 50-503(a), supra, on the various grounds hereafter treated in this opinion.
The matter was submitted to the trial court upon the pleadings of the respective parties, and the stipulations of fact hereinbefore mentioned.
Thereafter, on the 17th day of December, 1964, the trial court made findings, concluded that the appellants' conduct violated 50-503(a), supra; that the statute was not unconstitutional for any of the reasons asserted by the appellants or for any combination of such reasons, and entered judgment granting injunctive relief.
In the year 1957 the legislature of the State of Kansas enacted legislation which now appears as K.S.A. 50-501 to 50-510, inclusive, which has come to be known as the 'Dairy Practices Act.'
The general policy of the state which the legislature intended to further by the act is stated in 50-501, supra, as follows:
The act (L.1957, ch. 309) is entitled 'AN ACT relating to dairy products as therein defined, defining and prohibiting unfair trade practices in the dealing in dairy products, and providing penalties therefor, and providing for injunctive relief.'
As the title indicates, the act provides that violations thereof constitute a crime, and criminal penalties as well as civil remedies are provided. (See, K.S.A. 50-504 and 50-505.)
In the first section (50-501, supra), the legislative purpose declared two practices engaged in by many dairy processors, wholesalers and distributors adversely affected the stable economy of Kansas and were detrimental to the public health and welfare, these two practices being: (1) Selling below cost; and (2) subsidization of retail dealers through secret discounts, gifts, loans, etc.
The second section of the act defines certain terms used in the act.
The third section of the act (50-503, supra) provides that it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in business as a wholesaler, processor or distributor to do or cause to be done any of the acts specified in the subsections thereunder. It is to be noted the prohibitions are imposed upon the wholesaler, processor or distributor regardless of his intent or purpose. The prohibitions are not imposed upon 'retail dealers' unless they are also 'wholesalers, processors or distributors.'
Subsection (a), which the appellants are herein charged with violating, and the constitutionality of which they challenge, in pertinent part reads:
'Furnish, give, rent, lease, or lend to a retail dealer or consumer any money, equipment, fixtures, ice cream cabinets or bulk milk dispensers, supplies, or other things having a real or substantial value, or any expendable supplies commonly provided in connection with sales of dairy products to the consumer (except that he may sell dairy products) except it shall be lawful to lend or rent ice cream cabinets, milk dispensers or milk coolers for periods of not to exceed ten (10) days in any one period of six (6) consecutive months. * * *' (Emphasis added.)
Various other transactions with retail dealers and consumers are prohibited by subsections (b) through (k) and by subsection (n).
Subsections (l) and (m) were designed to prohibit sales below cost and the granting or making, either directly or indirectly, to any retail dealer of any secret discount or of any rebate. Subsections (l) and (m) were declared to be in conflict with the state and federal constitutional guarantees of due process in State, ex rel. Anderson v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674, 339 P.2d 12.
The appellants throughout this litigation have consistently contended that subsection (a) involved in this case is inseparable from subsections (l) and (m), and that subsection (a) otherwise violates the due process and equal protection guarantees of both the federal and state constitutions.
The question has been settled since Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940, 89 A.L.R. 1469 (1934), that regulation of the dairy industry is properly within the police power of the state. In the Nebbia case it was stated:
* * *'(pp. 517, 518, 54 S.Ct. p. 507.)
Further in the Nebbia case the court said:
* * *'(p. 537, 54 S.Ct. p. 516.)
The principle of the Nebbia case has been recognized by this court in Carolene Products Co. v. Mohler, 152 Kan. 2, 16, 102 P.2d 1044; and in State, ex rel. Anderson v. Fleming Co., supra.
Once a subject is found to be within the scope of the state's police power, the only limitations upon the exercise of such power are that the regulations must have reference in fact to the welfare of society and must be fairly designed to protect the public against the evils which might otherwise occur. Within these limits the legislature is the sole judge of the nature and extent of the measures necessary to accomplish its purpose. (Schaake v. Dolley, 85 Kan. 598, 605, 118 P. 80; and Carolene Products Co. v. Mohler, supra.)
In a legal opinion of this nature challenging the constitutional validity of a statute, the court need not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Genson, No. 121,014
... ... State, ex rel., v. Fadely, 180 Kan. at 665, 308 P.2d 537. It is fundamental that where ... "[T]he Fairmont court noted that the [public welfare] doctrine has been recognized in ... injurious to the public welfare, such as manufacturing adulterated foods or drugs. But KORA punishes doing nothingthe failure to fill out ... Smith v. Doe , 538 U.S. 84, 103, 105-06, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164 ... ...
-
State v. Genson
... ... Cf. State ex rel. Smith v. Fairmont Foods Co. , 196 Kan. 73, 81, 410 P.2d 308 (1966) ("The ... ...
-
State Bd. of Nursing v. Ruebke
... ... The STATE BOARD OF NURSING and State of Kansas ex rel. State ... Board of Healing Arts, Appellants, ... E. Michelle RUEBKE, ... State, ex rel., v. Fairmont Foods Co., 196 Kan. 73, 77, 410 P.2d 308 (1966); see State, ex rel. v ... 240, Syl. p 3, 834 P.2d 368. In the Indiana case of Smith v. State ex rel. Medical Licensing Bd., 459 N.E.2d 401, 406 n. 4 ... ...
-
State v. Mountjoy
... ... 178 Kan. at 158-59, 283 P.2d 433 ... In State, ex rel., v. Fadely, 180 Kan. 652, 665, 308 P.2d 537 (1957), the court addressed ... Fairmont Foods Co., 196 Kan. 73, 410 P.2d 308 (1966). In that case, the court ... ...
-
State Price Discrimination Law
...(dairy products). A similar Kansas provision has been declared unconstitutional. See State ex rel. Smith v. Fairmont Foods Co., 410 P.2d 308, 311-12, 316 (Kan. 1966). 421. See, e.g ., CONN. GEN. STAT. § 22-245 (milk); GA. CODE ANN. §§ 2-8-22(a)(4), 2-8-62(a)(4) (agricultural commodities); M......
-
Kansas. Practice Text
...124. State ex rel. Anderson v. Fleming Co., 339 P.2d 12 (Kan. 1959). 125. Id. at 18. 126. State ex rel. Smith v. Fairmont Foods Co., 410 P.2d 308 (Kan. 1966). Kansas 19-17 statute, which prohibits gifts and the like to retail dealers and consumers and which the court expressly upheld agains......