Arnold v. Hanna

Decision Date08 October 1926
Docket NumberNo. 27351.,27351.
Citation290 S.W. 416
PartiesARNOLD et al. v. HANNA et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Fred W. Coon, Judge.

Action by Bryant Arnold and others against Forest Hanna, Prosecuting Attorney of Jackson County, and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and George W. Crowder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.

Charles M. Blackmar and R. Harrison Field, both Kansas City (Hall, Meservey, Michaels, Blackmar & Newkirk, of Kansas City, of counsel), for respondents.

BLAIR, C. J.

This is an action by certain commission merchants dealing in hay and straw at Kansas City, Mo., to enjoin Forest Hanna, prosecuting attorney of Jackson county, and C. P. Anderson, state marketing commissioner, from enforcing the provisions of "An act to regulate commission merchants in farm products," etc.; as same appears in Laws of 1925, p. 121. The trial court overruled defendants' demurrer to the petition. They stood on their demurrer, refused to plead over, and suffered judgment, from which an appeal was granted to this court.

The facts in the case, as gleaned from the petition, are that respondents are "engaged in the business of selling hay and straw in carloads upon commission, of buying hay and straw in carloads both for their own account and for account of others, and otherwise merchandising and dealing in hay and straw in carload lots in Kansas City, Jackson county, Mo." Respondents have been engaged in said business for a great number of years. The greater part of their business is interstate commerce, and most of the consignments and purchases of such commodities come from states other than Missouri. In many cases, when such commodities are received by respondents, they are consigned to places outside of the state of Missouri on the original railroad billing from points of origin outside of Missouri, and are not unloaded at Kansas city. Practically all of the hay and straw coming to the Kansas City market is consigned to respondents.

Respondents allege:

That their respective businesses have been organized and built up after long years of honest effort, labor, and expense, and constitute valuable assets and property rights; that said pretended law denies the rights of respondents to engage or to continue in their businesses, except upon giving bond and taking out a license; that appellants claim the right, and assert the intention, to exercise inquisitorial powers, both upon the interstate and intrastate business of respondents, to investigate and examine books and other records pertaining to the conduct of respondents' business, and to require respondents to make affidavits in respect thereto; "that said act enforces the burdensome and expensive duty upon the plaintiffs of establishing a new system of bookkeeping, and requires plaintiffs to disclose information which will come into the possession of plaintiffs' competitors and others, and used to plaintiffs' detriment and to the destruction of plaintiffs' businesses; that the act permits the state officers to examine into the books and papers of the plaintiffs, and to derive therefrom the names of the plaintiffs' customers and of other persons with whom plaintiffs have business, and that such information may be improperly used to the detriment of the business of the plaintiffs."

It is further alleged:

"That the defendant C. P. Anderson has announced his settled purpose to publish and disseminate lists of commission merchants from which the names of the plaintiffs and of others refusing to comply with the law aforesaid, or any part thereof, will be omitted on the ground of their failure to comply with said law, or will be noted therein as not complying with the law; that the necessary effect thereof will be to discriminate against these plaintiffs and others standing in a similar situation in the minds of producers and the public generally, and to be to injure their business and the public estimate of their reliability, thus conferring upon the defendants the arbitrary power and effect to blacklist these plaintiffs without any hearing or justification whatsoever."

Certain facts are then alleged for the purpose of showing that respondents have no adequate remedy at law by appeal from criminal prosecutions or otherwise, and that irreparable injury will be inflicted upon them, unless the enforcement of said act is enjoined. The prayer is for an injunction restraining appellants from enforcing said act.

The invalidity of said act is specifically assailed upon the following grounds:

"That said act is contrary to, and violative of, section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States conferring power upon Congress to regulate interstate commerce, and is contrary to, and violative of section 1 of, article 14 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.providing that no state shall deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. The provisions of said act are outside of the title thereof, and are not clearly expressed therein, and the bill and said act contain more than one subject, all in contravention of section 28 of article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri; that the act gives to the state marketing commissioner arbitrary powers of inquisition and inspection of the plaintiffs' ledgers, books, accounts, memoranda and other papers, and in this respect violates section 11, art. 2, of the Constitution of the state of Missouri, and article 4 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States with reference to unlawful and unwarranted search and seizures; that said act gives arbitrary powers to the state marketing commission to require these plaintiffs to make affidavits with respect to transactions had with plaintiffs' customers, and in this respect violates section 23 of article 2 of the Constitution of the state of Missouri."

By the judgment entered by the trial court, it was adjudged:

"That the said law mentioned in plaintiffs' petition is unconstitutional for the reasons specified in. plaintiffs' petition, and adjudges and decrees that the defendants and each of them be, and they are hereby, permanently enjoined and restrained from in any way enforcing the act entitled'An act to regulate commission merchants,' etc., as more particularly appears in the Session Laws of the Missouri Legislature for the year 1925 at page 121, and that the defendants be, and they are, perpetually restrained from in any way attempting to compel the plaintiffs to apply for a license under said act, or from compelling, or attempting to compel, the plaintiffs to give a bond, as required in said act, or in any way inspecting or demanding the right to inspect the books, ledgers, accounts, etc., of the plaintiffs, or requiring the plaintiffs to make any affidavits mentioned in said law, or in any way arresting or interfering with the plaintiffs in the lawful prosecution of their business, and that the defendants are permanently restrained from arresting or filing criminal charges against the plaintiffs, or any of them, for failure on the part of the plaintiffs to comply with said law, and defendants are perpetually restrained from in any way exercising, or attempting to exercise, the supervisory or regulatory powers attempted by said law to be conferred upon them."

A general understanding of the provisions of the act is essential to a proper consideration of the assaults made upon its validity. Section 1 provides that every person, etc., who shall receive, sell, or offer for sale on commission in this state "any kind of farm products, shall be deemed to be a commission merchant and engaged in the commission business." Certain exceptions are then made, among which is that the act shall not apply to commission merchants "dealing exclusively either in live stock or in grain." Both commodities are "farm products," which term is defined as including'agricultural, horticultural, vegetable and fruit products of the soil, meats, marine food products, poultry, eggs, dairy products, wool, hides, feathers, nuts, and honey, but shall not apply to seeds sold at retail, nor include timber products, tea, coffee, or pelts of fur-bearing animals." Hay and straw clearly come within the definition of farm products.

Sections 2 and 3 deal with the requirements of taking out a license as commission merchants, for which the annual fee is 825, and of giving Surety bond as such in the sum of 82,000. Section 4 specifies that commission merchants shall keep certain specified records. Section 5 provides for the refusal and revocation of licenses upon certain conditions. Section 6 provides for circuit court review 'of the acts of the state marketing commissioner and hearing de novo in said court with appeal therefrom, as in other civil cases, and provides that the license revoked by the commissioner shall be deemed in full force pending final determination, unless ended prior thereto in accordance with its terms.

Section 7 defines the powers and duties of the commissioner. These include an investigation of the character and standing of the applicant before a license is granted to him, investigation of complaints against commission merchants, requirement of production and inspection of books and other records of commission merchants, sworn statements of commission merchants, etc. The commissioner is given power to revoke licenses after citation and hearing.

By section 9 certain acts of commission merchants are made misdemeanors, punishable by fines not less than 850 nor more than 1500. The acts so denounced are:

"(a) Knowingly impose any false or fictitious charge for handling or services in connection with farm products, or (b) with intent to defraud, fail to account or make settlement...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Arnold v. Hanna
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 Octubre 1926
  • Ballentine v. Nester, 38043.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 6 Agosto 1942
    ... ... State ex rel. Nigro v. Kansas City, 325 Mo. 95, 27 S.W. (2d) 1030; Stegmann v. Weeke, 279 Mo. 140, 214 S.W. 137; Arnold v. Hanna, 315 Mo. 823, 290 S.W. 416; Boll v. Condie-Bray Glass & Paint Co., 321 Mo. 92, 11 S.W. (2d) 48; Kingshighway Presbyterian Church v. Sun ... ...
  • State ex rel. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Mulloy
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 27 Julio 1933
    ...180 Mo. 148, 79 S.W. 1195. (4) Injunction is a proper remedy for the prevention of the enforcement of an invalid statute. Arnold v. Hanna, 315 Mo. 823, 290 S.W. 416; State ex rel. Chase v. Hall, 297 Mo. 594, 250 S.W. 64; Merchants Exchange v. Knott, 212 Mo 616, 111 S.W. 565; Jewel Tea Co. v......
  • People v. Perretta
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 Abril 1930
    ... ... The Supreme Court of the United States in Payne v. Kansas ex rel. Brewster, 248 U. S. 112, 39 S. Ct. 32, 33, 63 L. Ed. 153, followed in Arnold v. Hanna, 276 U. S. 591, 48 S. Ct. 212, 72 L. Ed. 721, affirming 315 Mo. 823, 290 S. W. 416, had before it a state law forbidding the sale of farm ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT