Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-08-18
KANSASCOURT
IGNORES WHEAT
POOL CONTRACT
Refuses Injunction Against
Selling of Crop to
Independents.

Kansas newspapers are carrying &C
counts Of the refusal of a court of
that state to enjoin a farmer. who
had. signed a five year contract. to
| deliver his wheat to the pool of the
| Kansas Wheat Growers association,
against disposing Of his crop TO indie
pendent dealers. The ease was heard
by the court Jnly 10 and 20 and at
it's conclusion the injunction sought
BY the association was denied. At
torneys for the association have given
notice Of appeal to the Kansas supreme
court.
The Wichita Daily Eagle carries
this story on the courts decision:
Judge Jesse D. Wall Of the Sedg-
wick county district court has denied
the injunction sought BY the Kansas
Wheat Growers association. against
Frank Schultz. a member of the or
ganization. selling his product to deal
ers other than the association.
Many Oissatisfisd
"Just what effect the ruling may
produce on the stability and perpetu-
atty Of the organization. may not be
known until after the supreme court
of the state has passed on the ques-
ton: for. notice wes given by attorneys
for plaintiff that application will be
made to the supreme tribunal next
Monday. seeking the desired injunction.
1t was not stated whether the applica-
ton will be made under the declara-
tory judgment act. a measure adopted
by the last legislature.
"The Kansas Wheat Growers associ-
alton has approximately $500 mem
k~n. AAn N $780, a~1 80 C1~-rnEx
county. 1t is rumored that there has
been a great deal Of dissatisfaction
over the manner in which the affairs
Of the association have been CON
Quoted: that contrary to the principle
that zone other than farmers shall
hold office and draw salaries, a sales
manager and an attorney are employed
at salaries of $4,000 per year and that
otherwise. contracts with members are
not being lived up to.
"Ail Of Thursday and Friday during
progress of the trial. the court room
has been packed with farmers. 1t is
said they are members of the assOci-
alton and are awaiting outcome of the
issue. with the view Of being guided
by the result. 1t is said that several
have held off threshing until the case
is settled. desiring if the ease goes
against the association. TO sell their
wheat elsewhere.
Holds Right Doesn't Exist
THE plaintiff claimed. under a pro-
vision of the cooperative marketing
law passed by the 1921 session of
the Kansas legislature. the right Of a
temporary injunction on filing a veri-
fled petition and bond. without in
PRODUCING evidence. However. Judge
Wall held that this right does not
exist. that evidence should BE heard
and that the case should be determined
on the issues.
And in so doing Judge Wall strong
ly intimated hat in his opinion. the
section Of the cooperative marketing
law pleaded in the case is unconstitu- |
tional on the grounds that it does not
authorize a hearing before the i%njunc-
ton is issued.
Schultz is a farmer who raises
wheat on a more or less extensive
scale eight miles southwest of Wichita.
His defense in the injunction action is
that he is under no obligation 10 OBJ
serve the rules laid down by the
Wheat Growers association. for the
alleged reason that he was induced to
sign the contract to pool his product
under misrepresentation from one of
the associations agents"