STORE ORDERS. In some states the maintaining of general supply stores by companies or individual employers is for bidden.
An act requiring the redemption in cash of store orders is constitutional; Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13, 22 Sup. Ct. 1, 46 L. Ed. 55; State v. Coal Co., 36 W. Va. 802, 15 S. E. 1000, 17 L. R. A. 385; Han cock v. Yaden, 121 Ind. 366, 23 N. E. 253, 6 L. R. A. 576, 16 Am. St. Rep. 396; but it is held that statutes prohibiting the issuance of checks for labor performed redeemable in goods and merchandise interfere with the right of freedom of contract. Such statutes are not within the police power of the state; Jordan v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 531, 103 S. W. 633, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 603, 14 Ann. Cas. 616 (which case see for a review of the de cisions supporting this view) ; to the s effect, Leach v. Timber Co., 111 Mo. App. 650, 86 S. W. 579; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307, 22 S. W. 350, 21 L. R. A. 789; God charles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. 431, 6 Atl. 334. The legislature may not single out owners and operators of m!nes and manufactures of every kind, and provide that they should bear burdens not impo3ed on other owners of property or employers of labor, and pro hibit them from making contracts which it is competent for other owners of property or employers of labor to make ; State v. Good
will, 33 W. Va. 179, 10 S. E. 285, 6 L. R. A. 621, 25 Am. St. Rep. 863.
A statute prohibiting mining, manufactur ing or railroad corporations from paying wages otherwise than in legal tender money was held not to prevent an employe from giving an order on his employer to mer chants or others as an assignment of wages to pay his debts; Shaffer v. Min. Co., 55 Md. 74. Giving an employe checks for merchan dise in advance of pay day on his own vol untary application does not violate a statute providing that labor shall be paid for in lawful money; Avent Beattyville Coal Co. v. Com., 96 Ky. 218, 28 S. W. 502, 28 L. R. A. 273.
It is usurious to discount a store order for goods by paying twenty per cent. less than its face; Osborne v. Fuller, 92 S. C. 338, 75 S. E. 557, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1058.
See LIBERTY OF CONTRACT; POLICE POWER.