Patrick Collins v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Decision Date22 June 1914
Docket NumberNo. 35,35
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. E. L. Worthington and J. M. Collins for plaintiff in error.

Mr. James Garnett, Attorney General of Kentucky, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error, Patrick Collins, and other tobacco growers of Mason county, Kentucky, entered into a pooling contract with the Burley Tobacco Society and the Mason County Board of Control whereby they consigned to the society their respective crops of tobacco (raised in the year 1907), to be sold by the society as their agent upon such terms as it should prescribe, but not less than a minimum price. Because Collins disposed of his crop without the consent of the agents of the pool, he was indicted. He demurred to the indictment upon both state and Federal grounds, setting forth as the latter that the statutes under which he was prosecuted contravened the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in that they denied to him the equal protection of the laws and deprived him of liberty and property without due process of law, and also were repugnant to the commerce clause and the Federal anti-trust act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 209, chap. 647, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p 3200). The demurrer was overruled and trial was had. There was evidence that the tobacco had been removed by Collins to Cincinnati, Ohio, and there sold; Collins was found guilty and sen- tenced to pay a fine. The court of appeals having affirmed the judgment (141 Ky. 565, 133 S. W. 233), this writ of error is prosecuted.

The conviction was under the provisions of § 3941a of the Kentucky statutes, being the act of March 21, 1906 (Laws 1906, chap. 117), as amended by the act of March 13, 1908 (Laws 1908, chap. 8). The act of 1906 permitted persons to 'pool or combine' the crops of 'tobacco, wheat, corn, oats, hay, or other farm products' raised by them 'for the purpose of obtaining a better or higher price therefor than could or might be obtained by selling said crops separately or individually.' The persons so agreeing were also allowed to select agents to receive and to sell or dispose of the crops, so placed, in order to accomplish the object of the combination. The amendment of 1908, in addition to giving remedies by way of injunction and damages, provided that the agent, 'when so selected,' should have 'the sole right to sell said crop so pooled or combined,' that it should be unlawful 'for any owner of such crop to sell or dispose of same, and for any person to knowingly purchase the same without the written consent of such agent,' and that 'upon conviction thereof,' a fine should be imposed.

This statute, as construed by the court of appeals of Kentucky, is not to be regarded as an independent enactment, but is to be viewed in connection with the Kentucky anti-trust act of 1890 (Ky. Stat. § 3915), and in the light of § 198 of the Kentucky Constitution adopted in 1891. The statute of 1890 forbade the formation of pools or combinations for the purpose of regulating, controlling, or fixing the price of merchandise or property of any kind. Section 198 of the Constitution provided that it should be the duty of the general assembly from time to time to enact such laws as might be necessary 'to prevent all trusts, pools, combinations, or other organizations from combining to depreciate below its real value any article or to enhance the cost of any article above its real value.' It was held that the constitutional provision did not repeal the act of 1890 (Com. v. Grinstead, 108 Ky. 59, 55 S. W. 720, 57 S. W. 471); and in Com. v. International Harvester Co. 131 Ky. 551, 133 Am. St. Rep. 256, 115 S. W. 703, it was further held (approving the views expressed in Owen County Burley Tobacco Soc. v. Brumback, 128 Ky. 137, 107 S. W. 710) that the act of 1906 did not violate § 198 of the Constitution, in as much as it 'did not authorize a pool to enhance the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
113 cases
  • State v. Sears
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1940
    ... ... 116, 49 S.Ct. 50, 73 L.Ed. 210, 86 ... A.L.R. 654; Commonwealth v. Clearview Coal Co., 256 ... Pa. 328, 100 A. 820, L.R.A.1917E, ... International Harvester Co. v ... Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 221, 34 S.Ct. 853, 58 L.Ed ... 1284; Collins v ... ...
  • State v. W. U. Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • April 2, 1951
    ...state statute there in issue was complied with called for 'gifts that mankind does not possess.' And in Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638, 34 S.Ct. 924, 925, 58 L.Ed. 1510 (1914) the same statute was said to call for a determination of conduct 'not according to the actualities of life,......
  • MAYOR & BD. OF ALDERMEN v. Welch, No. 2003-CC-02103-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 2, 2004 328, citing Int'l Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 221, 34 S.Ct. 853, 58 L.Ed. 1284 (1914); Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638, 34 S.Ct. 924, 58 L.Ed. 1510, (1914). ¶ 30. Similarly, a court has declared void a statute requiring a railway company to run sufficient cars to acco......
  • Screws v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1945 avoid the happening (see International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 34 S.Ct. 853, 58 L.Ed. 1284; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 34 S.Ct. 924, 58 L.Ed. 1510; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 41 S.Ct. 298, 65 L.Ed. 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045; Cline v. Frink Dair......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 48-3, March 1997
    • Invalid date state minimum wage law); American Seeding Mach. Co. v. Kentucky, 236 U.S. 660, 661 (1915) (state antitrust law); Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 636-38 (1914) (state antitrust law); International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 221-24 (1914) (state antitrust law). The void-fo......

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