TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Crosby Bros. Mercantile Co.

The State of Kansas v. The Crosby Brothers Mercantile Company, Appellee The State of Kansas v. The Sperry & Hutchinson Company, Appellee The State of Kansas v. The Surety Coupon Company

State v. Crosby Bros. Mercantile Co., 176 P. 670 (Kan. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 19, 1918
Docket
Nos. 21,821; No. 21,822; No. 21,823
Judges
Dawson
Citations
176 P. 670103 Kan. 8961918 Kan. LEXIS 415
Summary
opinion denying a rehearing. Appeal from Shawnee district court, division No. 2; George H. Whitcomb, judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dawson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

*897 The opinion of the court was delivered by Dawson, J.:

In petitions for a rehearing filed by the several defendants herein, some mere defects of pleading are now urged against the informations, which were not directed to our attention when the appeals were formally presented, and to which no reference can be noted in the briefs of counsel.. The briefs and arguments of counsel were properly devoted to the weighty and difficult questions involved in the interpretation ol the trading-stamp act, the history ,of similar litigation in other jurisdictions, and the constitutional questions involved. Any defects in the mere art of pleading which may inhere in the in-formations were waived, and this court will not now consider them.

The court is urged to say whether under any circumstances a trading-stamp company which is not engaged in merchandising’on its own account can prosecute its trading-stamp business in Kansas without a license, but we can only decide questions which are squarely involved and squarely presented in an appeal; and if the court should now give a dogmatic negative to this question, it would only be dictum, and nobody would be bound by it.

Rehearing denied.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1940: 11946: 11959: 11961: 21963: 11983: 12016: 119402026peak 1961 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Steffey v. City of Casper357 P.2d 456 (Wyo. 1961)
  2. State ex rel. Parker v. Stonehouse Drainage District, No. 1102 P.2d 1017 (Kan. 1940)
  3. Medford v. Board of Trustees of Park College175 P.2d 95 (Kan. 1946)
  4. State v. DickeyNo. 110325 (Kan. Oct. 7, 2016)
  5. Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. Cascade Laundry Co.347 P.2d 455 (Kan. 1959)
  6. Cushenbery v. Shanahan378 P.2d 66 (Kan. 1963)

Most recent

  1. State v. DickeyNo. 110325 (Kan. Oct. 7, 2016)
  2. State ex rel. Stephan v. Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers, Inc.659 P.2d 213 (Kan. 1983)
  3. Cushenbery v. Shanahan378 P.2d 66 (Kan. 1963)
  4. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. WW-1047 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1961)
  5. Steffey v. City of Casper357 P.2d 456 (Wyo. 1961)
  6. Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. Cascade Laundry Co.347 P.2d 455 (Kan. 1959)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list