Harrod v. Latham Mercantile & Commercial Co.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Benson, J.:

In reviewing this case at a former hearing a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for nominal damages was reversed. (Latham v. Harrod, 71 Kan. 565, 81 Pac. 214.) The second trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for $2000. The defendants now bring the case here insisting that the statute relied upon for recovery is unconstitutional, and that in any event the facts do not warrant a recovery.

The validity of the statute was not challenged at the first hearing. It is claimed that the title of the act is not sufficient under section 16 of…