American Seeding MacHine Co. v. Kentucky

American Seeding Machine Company v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Am. Seeding MacHine Co. v. Kentucky, 236 U.S. 660 (1915)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: March 15, 1915
Docket: No. 175
Judges: McKenna
Citations: 236 U.S. 66035 S. Ct. 45659 L. Ed. 7731915 U.S. LEXIS 1721

Syllabus

International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, followed to effect that §§ 3915 and 3941, of the Kentucky Anti-Trust Statutes, are invalid under the due’ process’ provision of the Fourteenth Amendment because, as construed by the Court of Appeals of that State, they offer no standard of conduct that it is possible to know.

Summary

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of certain provisions of the Antitrust Act of the State of Kentucky, are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion — McKenna

Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice McKenna, by direction of the court.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the Circuit Court of Barren County, Kentucky, and fined for alleged violation of §§ 3915 and 3941 of the Kentucky laws commonly known as the Kentucky Anti-trust Statutes, and prosecutes this writ to review the judgment.

The grounds of error assigned are: (1) That the statutes in question are in conflict .with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; (2) That the particular transactions involved were transactions of interstate commerce and protected from state regulation by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

These grounds were presented to the lower court first by demurrer, which was overruled, and, after answer and trial to a jury, by a request for peremptory instructions for defendant.

The sections of the laws of Kentucky referred to were declared to.be invalid by this court under the Fourteenth Amendment because they, as construed by the Court of *662 Appeals of the State, offered no standard of conduct that it is possible to know.

International Harvester Co.

v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216 . Therefore, the judgment of conviction against plaintiff in error must be reversed.

It is not necessary to pass on any other question.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

United States v. Brown5 F. Supp. 81 (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
Bailey v. Commonwealth30 S.W.2d 879 (Ky. Ct. App. 1930)
State v. Kinney Bldg. Drug Stores, Inc.151 A.2d 430 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1959)
Cardinal Sporting Goods Co. v. Eagleton213 F. Supp. 207 (E.D. Mo. 1963) · Dissent
State v. Kinney Building Drug Stores, Inc.151 A.2d 430 (1959)
Cline v. Frink Dairy Co.274 U.S. 445 (1927)

Most recent

Cardinal Sporting Goods Co. v. Eagleton213 F. Supp. 207 (E.D. Mo. 1963) · Dissent
State v. Kinney Bldg. Drug Stores, Inc.151 A.2d 430 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1959)
State v. Kinney Building Drug Stores, Inc.151 A.2d 430 (1959)
United States v. Brown5 F. Supp. 81 (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
Bailey v. Commonwealth30 S.W.2d 879 (Ky. Ct. App. 1930)
People v. Maki223 N.W. 70 (Mich. 1929) · Concurrence

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 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Int'l Harvester Co. of Am. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216 (1914)	228

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list