Case Name: Northern Cedar Company et al., Respondents, v. Edward L. French, as Director of Agriculture et al., Appellants; C. W. Chamberlain et al., Respondents v. Edward L. French et al., Appellants
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1925-02-18
Citations: 133 Wash. 692
Docket Number: No. 18267
Parties: Northern Cedar Company et al., Respondents, v. Edward L. French, as Director of Agriculture et al., Appellants. C. W. Chamberlain et al., Respondents v. Edward L. French et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 692–693

Head Matter:
[No. 18267.
En Banc.
February 18, 1925.]
Northern Cedar Company et al., Respondents, v. Edward L. French, as Director of Agriculture et al., Appellants. C. W. Chamberlain et al., Respondents v. Edward L. French et al., Appellants.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Thurston county, Wilson, J., entered September 7, 1923, in favor of the plaintiffs, upon overruling demurrers to the complaints, in consolidated actions for an injunction.
Reversed.
The Attorney General and E. W. Anderson, Assistant, for appellants.
E. S. Gill and Guie & Halverstadt, for respondents.
Reported in 233 Pac. 39.

Opinion:
On Rehearing.
Per Curiam.
In the petition for rehearing, respondents object to that portion of our opinion which says that they raised the objection that the legislature could not constitutionally regulate the business of a commission merchant. Northern Cedar Co. v. French, 131 Wash. 394, 230 Pac. 837. A re-examination of the briefs shows that they did not so argue, but that appellants presented the question fully. We are glad to correct the opinion in this regard.
Respondents also ask us to correct the inference raised by the opinion that they questioned the sufficiency of tbe title to the commission merchants' act under discussion. We did not mean to leave that inference. The question was not briefed at all, though it was mentioned in oral argument. It may be said that we raised the question ourselves and asked for and received briefs from both sides of it. In their brief respondents stated that they thought the title sufficient.