House v. Joel Mayes

Citation219 U.S. 270,31 S.Ct. 234,55 L.Ed. 213
Decision Date09 January 1911
Docket NumberNo. 597,597
PartiesR. J. HOUSE, Plff. in Err., v. JOEL B. MAYES, Marshal of Jackson County, Missouri, and Elliott W. Major, Attorney General
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Frank Hagerman and Kimbrough Stone for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 271-275 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Elliott W. Major and John M. Atkinson for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 275-277 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error was proceeded against by information filed in the criminal court of Jackson county, Missouri, under a statute of Missouri, which was passed June 8th, 1909, and is entitled, 'An Act to Prevent Fraud in the Purchase and Sale of Grain and Other Commodities.' The statute reads: '§ 1. Every sale of grain, seed, hay, or coal shall be made on the basis of the actual weight thereof, and any purchaser of grain, seed, hay, or coal, who shall deduct any amount from the actual weight or measure thereof under claim of right to do so by reason of any custom or rule of a board of trade, or any pretense whatsoever, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be subject to a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $100 for each and every offense. § 2. No agent or broker selling any grain, seed, hay, or coal shall have authority, under claim or right to do so by reason of any custom or rule of board of trade, to sell any grain, seed, hay, or coal only on the basis of the actual weight thereof, and any contract of sale of any grain, seed, hay, or coal, made in violation of this act, shall be null and void.' Mo. Sess. Acts 1909, p. 519; Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 11,969, 11,970.

The information charged that the accused, on the 1st day of September, 1909, at the county of Jackson, state of Missouri, purchased from one James Anderson a car load of wheat, by weight, and unlawfully took and deducted from the actual weight 100 pounds, pretending and claiming the right to make such deduction, and to have and keep the said 100 pounds so deducted free of charge and cost to him, under and by virtue of a rule and custom of the board of trade of Kansas City, Missouri.

Having been arrested on a capias, and being held in custody by the defendant as marshal, the accused presented to the criminal court an application for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he was deprived of his liberty in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The application was denied, but it was subsequently granted by the supreme court of the state. The latter court, upon final hearing, also denied the application, and ordered that the petitioner be remanded to the custody of the marshal. The case is now here for review, upon assignments of error which question the constitutional validity of the statute under the 14th Amendment.

The case was heard upon an agreed statement of facts, the parties reserving all questions as to the relevancy of any particular fact therein stated. As the case is of some importance, it will be appropriate to set forth the above statement in full, as follows: 'Without admission of either party as to the relevancy of any particular fact herein set forth, the following facts are agreed between the parties: There are competitive grain markets at Galveston, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Omaha, Nebraska; Atchison and Wichita, Kansas; and St. Louis, St. Joseph, and Kansas City, Missouri. That Kansas City is a primary grain market. That a very slight difference in price or condition will influence the market course of grain. That the board of trade of Kansas City, Missouri, is a voluntary organization of buyers and sellers of grain and provisions, supported by dues and assessments, and maintained for the purpose of furnishing a marketing place where such persons can meet, and, under rules of safety and convenience, transact such business. Its objects are: 'To maintain a board of trade to promote uniformity in the customs and usages of merchants; to inculcate principles of justice and equity in business; to facilitate the speedy adjustment of business disputes; to inspire confidence in the business methods and integrity of the parties hereto; to collect and disseminate valuable commercial and economic information, and generally to secure to its members the benefits of co-operation in the furtherance of their legitimate pursuits, and to promote the general welfare of Kansas City.' Its members are governed by rules and regulations enacted by the members, and which form part of the written contract of association between them. This organization provides for the exclusive use of its members a trading floor, where grain is bought and sold only under and according to said rules. Three of said rules are: '§ 16. The weight supervising committee shall have supervision, through the weight department, of the unloading of all cars unloaded at all elevators, mills, warehouses, transfer and team tracks, within the jurisdiction of this board, and shall cause the same to be thoroughly swept and cleaned when unloaded. Sweeping or cleaning of cars subsequently by any operator or employee of any elevator, mill, warehouse, transfer or team tracks, or by any person or persons under agreement with the same, or the buying or receiving of any such sweepings or cleanings by any member of this association, is prohibited. § 17. Violations of any of the provisions of § 16 of this article shall subject the members so violating to a fine of $50 for the first offense, to a fine of $100 for the second offense, to expulsion and forfeiture of membership for the third offense. § 18. On all grain bought by members of the Kansas City board of trade, and on which Kansas City unloading weights are given, an allowance of 100 lbs. per car shall be made to the buyer, to cover loss on account of dirt and other foreign matter.' That said board of trade maintains a bureau of weights, which strictly enforces rule 16. That rules 16 and 17 were enacted to secure to the seller full weight of the entire contents of the car, and rule 18 to secure the buyer from loss through dirt and foreign matter in or swept out with the grain, which was unloaded at Kansas City. Before grain is sold, it is graded. One of the considerations in grading is the dirt and foreign matter in the grain. Experience had shown that there is a loss from dirt and foreign matter, varying with different cars, which is not fully taken care of in the grade. That there is no method in use of accurately determining the percentage of such foreign matter and dirt, and the 100-pound quantity was taken as a fair average. The members of said board of trade buy and sell...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 21 Enero 1913
    ...and convenience stands upon the same ground as the power to protect the public health and the public morals. House v. Mayes, 219 U. S. 270, 282, 31 Sup. Ct. 234, 55 L. Ed. 213; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 300, 19 Sup. Ct. 465, 43 L. Ed. 702; Thorpe v. Rutland R. Co., 2......
  • Albritton v. City of Winona
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 7 Febrero 1938
    ... ... Wilson ... v. Sanitary Trustees, 133 Ill. 445, 27 N.E. 203; In re ... House Roll No. 284, 31 Neb. 505, 48 N.W. 275; 1 ... Lewis' Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2 ... 1330; Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S ... 233, 40 S.Ct. 499, 502, 64 L.Ed. 878; House v ... Mayes, 219 U.S. 270, 31 S.Ct. 234, 55 L.Ed. 213; ... Jones v. Portland, 245 U.S. 217, 38 S.Ct. 112, ... ...
  • Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 531
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 5 Marzo 1934
    ...S.Ct. 610, 57 L.Ed. 971; regulating sales of grain by actual weight, and abrogating exchange rules to the contrary, House v. Mayes, 219 U.S. 270, 31 S.Ct. 234, 55 L.Ed. 213; subjecting state banks to assessments for a state depositors' guarantee fund, Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 1......
  • Hanson v. Union Pac. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 1955
    ...nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' As stated in House v. Mayes, 219 U.S. 270, 31 S.Ct. 234, 236, 55 L.Ed. 213: '* * * the government created by the Federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers, and cannot, by any of its agenci......
  • 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