Edmund Smiley v. State of Kansas
Decision Date | 20 February 1905 |
Docket Number | No. 13,13 |
Citation | 25 S.Ct. 289,196 U.S. 447,49 L.Ed. 546 |
Parties | EDMUND J. SMILEY, Plff. in Err. , v. STATE OF KANSAS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On March 8, 1897, the legislature of Kansas passed an act, the 1st section of which is as follows:
Subsequent sections prescribe penalties, and provide procedure for enforcing the act. On September 27, 1901, the county attorney filed in the district court of Rush county, Kansas, an information charging that the defendant did, on November 20, 1900, 'then and there unlawfully enter into an agreement, contract, and combination, in the county of Rush and the state of Kansas, with divers and sundry persons, partnerships, companies, and corporations of grain dealers and grain buyers in the town of Bison, in the said county and state aforesaid, to wit, Humburg & Ahrens, the La Crosse Lumber & Grain Company, the Bison Milling Company, and George Weicken, who were at the said time and place competitive grain dealers and buyers, to pool and fix the price the said grain dealers and buyers should pay for grain at the said place, and to divide between them the net earnings of the said grain dealers and buyers, and to prevent competition in the purchase and sale of grain among the said dealers and buyers.' A trial was had, the defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $500, and to imprisonment in the county jail for three months. On appeal to the supreme court of the state the judgment was affirmed. 65 Kan. 240, 69 Pac. 199. Whereupon this writ of error was sued out.
Mr.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 449-452 intentionally omitted] Messrs.D. R. Hite,H. J. Bone, and O. C. Coleman for defendant in error.
The verdict of the jury settles all questions of fact.
In Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 639, 42 L. ed. 878, 887, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488, it is said:
We pass, therefore, to a consideration of the questions of law. It is contended that the act of 1897 is in conflict with the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, in that it unduly infringes the freedom of contract; that it is too broad, and not sufficiently definite, and that while some things are denounced which may be within the police power of the state, yet its language reaches to and includes matters clearly beyond the limits of that power, and that there is no such separation or distinction between those within and those beyond as will enable the courts to declare one part valid and another part void. We quote from the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error:
It may be conceded, for the purposes of this case, that the language of the 1st section is broad enough to include acts beyond the police power of the state, and the punishment of which would unduly infringe upon the freedom of contract. At any rate we shall not attempt to enter into any consideration of that question. The supreme court of the state held that the acts charged and proved against the defendant were clearly within the terms of the statute, as well as within the police power of the state; and that the statute could be sustained as a prohibition of those acts irrespective of the question whether its language was broad enough to include acts and conduct which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. State
...must take the statute as though it read precisely as the highest court of the state has interpreted it."); Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447, 455, 25 S.Ct. 289, 290, 49 L.Ed. 546 (1904). The defendant was tried in meticulous compliance with the mandates of Beck v. State, and that decision is T......
-
Shaw v. Fox
...217 U.S. 563, 30 S.Ct. 578, 54 L.Ed. 883; Walsh v. Columbus, H. V. & A. R. Co., 176 U.S. 469, 20 S.Ct. 393, 44 L.Ed. 548; Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447, 25 S.Ct. 289, S.Ct. 546. The officers hereafter elected under the act cannot complain of the section limiting their salaries to less than......
-
Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 531
...Van Camp & Sons v. American Can Co., 278 U.S. 245, 49 S.Ct. 112, 73 L.Ed. 311, 60 A.L.R. 1060. 33 State statutes: Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447, 25 S.Ct. 289, 49 L.Ed. 546; National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U.S. 115, 25 S.Ct. 379, 49 L.Ed. 689; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1), 2......
-
Larabee v. Dolley
... 175 F. 365 LARABEE v. DOLLEY, State Bank Com'r, et al. ASSARIA STATE BANK, OF ASSARIA, KAN., et al. v ... SAME. Nos. 8,810, 8,816, 8,817. United States Circuit Court, D. Kansas, First Division. December 23, 1909 ... [175 F. 366] ... [Copyrighted ... Kansas City, 176 U.S. 114, 20 Sup.Ct. 284, 44 L.Ed. 392; ... Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447, 25 Sup.Ct. 289, 49 ... L.Ed. 546. As in the ... ...
-
INTERPRETING STATE STATUTES IN FEDERAL COURT.
...the choice of law). (34) See cases cited infra note 46. (35) Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton, 462 U.S. 176, 181 n.3 (1983). (36) Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447, 455 (1905); see also Bell v. Morrison, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 351, 359-60 (1828) (referring to "the local state tribunals, whose rules of interp......
-
Kansas
...603, 606 (Kan. 1909). 5. State v. Glenn Lumber Co., 111 P. 484, 487 (Kan. 1910). 6. State v. Smiley, 69 P. 199, 207 (Kan. 1902), aff’d , 196 U.S. 447 (1905). 7. KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 50-131 to -137. 8. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 50-132. 9. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 16-112. 10. 5 U.S.C. § 14. 11. KAN. STAT. ANN......
-
Kansas. Practice Text
...603, 606 (Kan. 1909). 5. State v. Glenn Lumber Co., 111 P. 484, 487 (Kan. 1910). 6. State v. Smiley, 69 P. 199, 207 (Kan. 1902), aff’d , 196 U.S. 447 (1905). 7. KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 50-131 to -137. 8. Id . § 50-132. 9. Id . § 16-112. 10. 15 U.S.C. § 14. 11. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 50-149. 12. 2000 ......