Thomas Broadnax v. State of Missouri
Decision Date | 09 January 1911 |
Docket Number | No. 598,598 |
Citation | 31 S.Ct. 238,55 L.Ed. 219,219 U.S. 285 |
Parties | THOMAS J. BROADNAX and Frank E. Essex, Plffs. in Err., v. STATE OF MISSOURI |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Frank Hagerman and Kimbrough Stone for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 286-289 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Elliott W. Major and John M. Atkinson for defendant in error.
This is an indictment in the criminal court of Jackson county, Missouri, against the plaintiffs in error, Broadnax and Essex. It is based on a statute of Missouri, approved March 8th, 1907 (Mo. Sess. Acts 1907, pp. 392, 393; No. Rev. Stat. 1909, §§ 10,228-10,230), which declares it to be
The indictment charges that the defendants, being officers and agents of the board of trade of Kansas City, Missouri, did, at a time specified, wilfully and unlawfully keep and caused to be kept a place, commonly called the trading floor of the board of trade of Kansas City, wherein was permitted the buying and selling of grain, provisions, and other commodities, on margins and otherwise, and where, at the time of such sales, so permitted, the grain, provisions, and other commodities so sold, were not actually paid for and delivered, and at such time and place the sellers, or any of them, of the grain, provisions, and other commodities, so sold on margins and otherwise, did not then and there cause to be made a complete record of the commodities sold and the time of delivery in a book kept for that purpose, and at said time and place neither the sellers, nor any of them, delivered to the purchasers a written or printed memoranda of said sales, on which they, the sellers, or any of them, had placed or caused to be placed a stamp of the value of 25 cents, which they had purchased of the state auditor, and had on hand before making such sales; contrary to the statutes, etc.
The defendants demurred to the indictment on the ground, among others, that the statute was in violation of the 14th Amendment, as well as of the commerce provision of the Constitution of the United States. The demurrer was overruled and the defendants excepted. A jury was waived, and the case was tried by the court.
Before the introduction of evidence, the defendants objected to any proof, resting their objection upon these grounds: 1. That the statute was discriminatory, abridged the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, deprived defendants of their property without due process of law, and denied to them the equal protection of the law, contrary to the provisions of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 2. That it was an unwarranted attempt to regulate interstate commerce.
The objection was also made that the statute was in violation of certain alleged provisions of the Constitution of Missouri. But with the latter ground we have, for obvious reasons, no cencern on this writ of error from the state court. The above objections to the evidence were overruled, the defendants duly excepting.
For the purpose of the case, and subject to such objections as might be thereafter stated, facts were admitted which brought the case within the provisions of the statute and the averments of the indictment.
The defendants objected to these facts as incompetent and inconsistent with the Constitutions, both of the United States and of Missouri. The objections were overruled and the defendants excepted. To the above statement of admitted facts this was added: 'A substantial part of the sales aforesaid being of grain, provisions, and other commodities which were, at the time of sale, in course of transportation as articles of interstate commerce.' The state objected to the facts just stated as incompetent and irrelevent. The objection was overruled, and the state excepted.
The result of the trial was a judgment that the defendants were guilty, and they were fined each $50. Motions for a new trial and for the arrest of judgment having been severally denied, the case was taken by appeal to the supreme court of Missouri, where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
The assignments of error present the same questions of constitutional law that were raised by the defendants' demu...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 531
...1917D, 642. 26 Sales of stock or grain on margin, Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425, 22 S.Ct. 425, 46 L.Ed. 623; Brodnax v. Missouri, 219 U.S. 285, 31 S.Ct. 238, 55 L.Ed. 219; Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606, 23 S.Ct. 168, 47 L.Ed. 323; the conduct of pool and billiard rooms by aliens, State of ......
-
Bratberg v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., 5872.
...27 S. Ct. 95, 51 L. Ed. 216, 8 Ann. Cas. 137;Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U. S. 340, 36 S. Ct. 561, 60 L. Ed. 1034;Brodnax v. Missouri, 219 U. S. 385, 285, 31 S. Ct. 238, 55 L. Ed. 219. In the case of Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606, 23 S. Ct. 168, 47 L. Ed. 323, article 4, § 26, of the Constituti......
-
Merced Dredging Co. v. Merced County, 378.
...to hold it clearly beyond reason. Sage Stores Co. v. Kansas, supra, 323 U.S. at page 35, 65 S.Ct. 9; Broadnax v. State of Missouri, 1911, 219 U.S. 285, 292, 293, 31 S.Ct. 238, 55 L.Ed 219. Within the realm of the debatable, within the field where reasonable men may differ, the legislative w......
-
Wrigley Pharmaceutical Co. v. Cameron
...28 S. Ct. 526, 52 L. Ed. 855, 14 Ann. Cas. 1031; Engel v. O'Malley, 219 U. S. 128 31 S. Ct. 190, 55 L. Ed. 128; Brodnax v. Missouri, 219 U. S. 285 31 S. Ct. 238, 55 L. Ed. 219; Banker Brothers Co. v. Pennsylvania, 222 U. S. 210 32 S. Ct. 38, 56 L. Ed. 168; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501 32 ......