State v. Smiley

Citations

• 65 Kan. 240
• 69 P. 199
• 67 L.R.A. 903
• 1902 Kan. LEXIS 42

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS -BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Statutes — Construction—Presumption of Intention of Legislature. The general language of statutes will be limited to such persons and subjects as it is reasonable to presume the legislature intended it should apply.</p> <p>2. - Constitutional Validity — Persons Capable of Making Objection. Objections to the constitutional validity of statutes can be made only by those to whom the enactment applies and against whom attempts to enforce it are made.</p> <p>3. Public Policy— Anti-competitive Trade Agreements — Valid Statute. The making of anti-competitive trade agreements, as to products and merchandise bought or sold on the general market, is contrary to public policy, and it is competent for the legislature to enact penal measures to prevent the making and carrying out of such agreements.</p> <p>1, - Anti-trust Law Valid — No Conflict with Federal Constitution. Chapter 265, Laws of 1897 (Gen. Stat. 1901, §§7861-7871), known as the “anti-trust law,” does not conflict with the guaranty of right to acquire property by lawful contract secured by the federal constitution, and is a valid exercise of legislative power.</p> <p>5. -Agreement in Restraint of Trade. An agreement entered into by all the- dealers on a certain market, limiting their right, severally, under stipulated forfeitures or penalties, to buy all the grain they otherwise might on such market, is an agreement in restraint of trade, and falls within the penal terms of the anti-trust act of 1897.</p> <p>6. Instructions — Harmless Error. An instruction to the jury, possibly erroneous, but, if so, harmless, discussed, and the lack of error in giving it pointed out.</p>