Case Name: The State of Kansas, Appellant, v. The Crosby Brothers Mercantile Company, Appellee; The State of Kansas, Appellant, v. The Sperry & Hutchinson Company, Appellee; The State of Kansas, Appellant, v. The Surety Coupon Company, Appellee
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1918-12-19
Citations: 103 Kan. 896
Docket Number: No. 21,821; No. 21,822; No. 21,823
Parties: The State of Kansas, Appellant, v. The Crosby Brothers Mercantile Company, Appellee. The State of Kansas, Appellant, v. The Sperry & Hutchinson Company, Appellee. The State of Kansas, Appellant, v. The Surety Coupon Company, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 896–897

Head Matter:
No. 21,821.
No. 21,822.
No. 21,823.
The State of Kansas, Appellant, v. The Crosby Brothers Mercantile Company, Appellee. The State of Kansas, Appellant, v. The Sperry & Hutchinson Company, Appellee. The State of Kansas, Appellant, v. The Surety Coupon Company, Appellee.
opinion denying a rehearing.
Appeal from Shawnee district court, division No. 2; George H. Whitcomb, judge.
Opinion denying a rehearing filed December 19, 1918.
(For original opinion of reversal see ante, p. 733.)
S. M. Brewster, attorney-general, and Hugh T. Fisher, county attorney, for the appellant; James A. Troutman, of Topeka, of counsel.
D. M. Dale, S. B. Amidon, S. A. Buckland, all of Wichita, L. S. Ferry, T. F. Doran, M. F. Cosgrove, A. M. Harvey, and Edwin D. McKeever, all of Topeka, for the appellees; John S. Dean, of Topeka, and Frank T. Wolcott, of New York, N. Y., of counsel.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dawson, J.:
In petitions for a rehearing filed by the several defendants herein, some mere defects of pleading are now urged against the informations, which were not directed to our attention when the appeals were formally presented, and to which no reference can be noted in the briefs of counsel.. The briefs and arguments of counsel were properly devoted to the weighty and difficult questions involved in the interpretation ol the trading-stamp act, the history ,of similar litigation in other jurisdictions, and the constitutional questions involved. Any defects in the mere art of pleading which may inhere in the in-formations were waived, and this court will not now consider them.
The court is urged to say whether under any circumstances a trading-stamp company which is not engaged in merchandising'on its own account can prosecute its trading-stamp business in Kansas without a license, but we can only decide questions which are squarely involved and squarely presented in an appeal; and if the court should now give a dogmatic negative to this question, it would only be dictum, and nobody would be bound by it.
Rehearing denied.