State v. Aikins
| Decision Date | 07 January 1911 |
| Docket Number | 16,852 |
| Citation | 112 P. 605,83 Kan. 792 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHARLES S. AIKINS et al., Appellants |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1911.
Appeal from Wyandotte district court.
Judgment affirmed.
R. E Ball, J. W. Farrar, and Keplinger & Trickett, for the appellants.
Fred S Jackson, attorney-general, for the appellee.
The action was brought by the state to dissolve the Traders' Live Stock Exchange of Kansas City, and to enjoin the exchange and its members from violating the antitrust laws of the state. Judgment was rendered for the state, and the defendants appeal. The assignments of error are all based upon the insufficiency of the evidence.
There were two sides to this controversy in the district court and much evidence was introduced to support each one. That court has performed its function of ascertaining and declaring the facts. Its findings are abundantly sustained, and they are approved.
The appellants seek to draw too sharp a distinction between the association and its members. The exchange is not a corporation. The members in their associate relation constitute the exchange.
It is said that the by-laws on their face, and interpreted by the preamble, disclose no wrongful purpose and do not have the necessary or direct effect of producing violations of the law, as was held in the case of Anderson v. United States, 171 U.S. 604, 43 L.Ed. 300, 19 S.Ct. 50; and it is further said that the court can not look beyond these bylaws to discover the true nature and actual purpose and effect of the organization. All this is to say that the statutes prohibiting trade trusts, combinations and conspiracies can be foiled with a set of by-laws; that the courts can not lift the sheep's skin from the wolf's head and know the creature. In practice and in fact rule 10 means that so far as possible no one shall be permitted to pursue the business of trading in stockers and feeders on the Kansas City market who is not a member of the exchange. The monopoly of ninety per cent of the trade in the largest stocker-and-feeder market of the world by the members of the exchange, and the wrecked business of practically every man and every company promising to attain prominence as an independent trader, prove the efficiency of the rule. True the rule has another face--innocent, lawful and laudable; but the court declines to stultify itself by looking upon that side only. The association did not go outside of its rules to enforce boycotts and the like, nor was such action occasioned by individual misinterpretations of the rules. The rules were the recognized basis and authority for those illegal measures.
The fact that approximately ten per cent of the stocker-and-feeder business done at the stockyards remains in the hands of outsiders does not take the case out of the statute.
Perhaps the volume of business done at the stockyards is not seriously reduced because of the existence of the exchange; but free participation in that business is not merely restricted--it is actually suppressed as to everyone who seems likely to become formidable and who is not a member. The price of a membership is now fixed at $ 1000. When a partnership engages in trade all the partners must be members (rule 11), and every person employed by a member to buy or sell cattle must also be a member (rule 12).
It is said that the exchange buys nothing and sells nothing. True but one of the functions of the association is to impose unlawful restrictions upon the full and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grisim v. South St. Paul Live Stock Exchange
... ... although stock is neither bought nor sold at its place of ... business ... State ... may regulate association of live stock dealers ... 2. An ... association of commission men, dealing in live stock at ... the states. In State v. Stock Exchange, 211 Mo. 181, ... 109 S.W. 675, 124 Am. St. 776, and State v. Aikins, ... 83 Kan. 792, 112 P. 605, the evils which resulted from the ... activities of the Kansas City Exchange are described. In the ... Kansas case, ... ...
-
Grisim v. Sough St. Paul Live Stock Exch., 22581.
...restraint of commerce between the states. In State v. Stock Exchange, 211 Mo. 181, 109 S. W. 675,124 Am. St. Rep. 776, and State v. Aikins, 83 Kan. 792, 112 Pac. 605, the evils which resulted from the activities of the Kansas City Exchange are described. In the Kansas Case, after adverting ......
-
Grisim v. South St. Paul Live Stock Exchange
...in restraint of commerce between the states. In State v. Stock Exchange, 211 Mo. 181, 109 S. W. 675, 124 Am. St. 776, and State v. Aikins, 83 Kan. 792, 112 Pac. 605, the evils which resulted from the activities of the Kansas City Exchange are described. In the Kansas case, after adverting t......
-
The Farmers Cooperative Commission Company and A. E. Randle v. The Wichita Board of Trade
...Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1, 67 L.Ed. 839, 43 S.Ct. 470; Ratcliff v. Stockyards Co., 74 Kan. 1, 86 P. 150; State v. Aikins, 83 Kan. 792, 112 P. 605), think it clear that the business of defendant is clothed with a public interest. Defendant argues that although it should be ......