...was held invalid under this same clause because it contained the excepting provision that it should " not apply to agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser." That was a stronger case than this because the whole statute was one dealing with economic policy and...

...competition, to limit production, to fix prices, etc.". In section 9 it was provided that "the provisions of this act shall not apply to agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of 167 the producer or raiser". This discrimination, the court held, was not a reasonable classification,...

...other, and of all other laws ill any way affecting them now in force in this state. "13. The provision of this act shall not apply to agricultural products...stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser." That portion of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States referred to in the...

...that its price might in any manner be affected." But § 9 of the act provided that " The provisions of this act shall not apply to agricultural products...stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser." 25 The Court said, at pp. 562, 563: "A state may in its wisdom classify property for the purposes of...

...differentiate the instant caso from the Connolly case (184 US 540), for there the exception was to apply to 'agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser'. My conclusion is that the classification in amended section 4 is arbitrary and not natural or reasonable;...

...trade, declaring contracts in violation of its provisions void, etc., provides (section 9) that it shall not apply to agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of producers. Held, that such section rendered the entire act void, as a violation of section 1 of the...

...Statute violated said provision of the Constitution because it excepted from the provisions of the act "agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser." In that case the court was dealing with a statute which made trusts or combinations in restraint of...

...Illinois, which, after defining combinations in restraint of trade in general terms, held: "The provisions of this Act shall not apply to agricultural products...while in the hands of the producer or raiser." The Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of the laws. The Supreme...

...the same terms as the Colorado Act of 1913, the ninth section of which reads thus: "The provisions of this Act shall not apply to agricultural products...stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser;" and the question there, as here, was whether the Sewer Pipe Company, in disposing of its products while...

...was held invalid under this same clause because it contained the excepting provision "that it should not apply to agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser." That was a stronger case than this because there the whole statute was one dealing with economic policy,...