AMERICAN SEEDING MACHINE COMPANY
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

U.S. | 1915-03-15
No. 175
236 U.S. 660 Supreme Court of the United States (1915) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 59 L. Ed. 773 · 35 S. Ct. 456 · 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1721 · SCDB 1914-193
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

American Seeding Machine Company was convicted under Kentucky's Anti-trust Statutes for alleged violations of state law, but the Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the Court had previously determined in International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky that those same statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide a sufficiently clear standard of conduct. The Court did not address the company's alternative argument that the transactions involved interstate commerce protected from state regulation.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice 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 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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1921)
    …on and authority, is so clearly pointed out in decided cases that we deem it only necessary to cite them. International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 221; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 637; American Seeding Machine Co. v. Kentucky, 236 U. S. 660, 662; and see United States v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 242 U. S. 208, 237-238. It follows from what we have said that, not forgetful of our duty to sustain the constitutionality of the statute [*93] if ground can possibly be found to do so, we are…
  • Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1927)
    …ion Co., 34 App. D. C. 592; United States v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 242 U. S. 208, 237-238; also International Harvester Company v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 221; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 637; American Seeding Machine Company v. Kentucky, 236 U. S. 660, 662. The Colorado Anti-Trust law. denounces conspiracies and combinations of persons and corporations, 1st, to create and carry out restrictions in trade or commerce' preventing the full and free pursuit of any lawful business in the State; 2d, to…
    1 / 2
  • Marcus Brown Holding Co., Inc. v. Feldman, 256 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1921)

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw