Charles Evans Hughes

Name: Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court
Author: Charles Evans Hughes

Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Charles Evans Hughes. It explores elements such as insurance, contract and garnishment.

Quotes from Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court (Charles Evans Hughes)

Charles Evans Hughes, Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court

“ We were unable then, as we are now, to concur in the view that an emergency can ever justify, or, what is really the same thing, can ever furnish an occasion for justifying, a nullification of the constitutional restriction upon state power in respect of the impairment of contractual obligations. Acceptance of such a view takes us beyond the fixed and secure boundaries of the fundamental law into a precarious fringe of extraconstitutional territory in which no real boundaries exist. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court

“ There is no restriction with respect to particular circumstances or relations. 'All moneys paid or payable' to any resident of the State 'as the insured or beneficiary designated' under any life insurance policy, are exempted 'from liability or seizure under judicial process' and 'shall not be subjected to the payment of any debt.' The profits of a business, if invested in life insurance, may thus be withdrawn from the pursuit of creditors to whatever extent desired. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court

“ Industry, talents, and integrity, constitute a fund which is as confidently trusted as property itself. Future acquisitions are, therefore, liable for contracts; and to release them from this liability impairs their obligation.' This principle was applied to an exemption of insurance moneys, in relation to antecedent debts, in Bank of Minden v. Clement, supra. The argument of appellee that a judgment is not in itself a contract within the constitutional protection, [5] and that it is competent for the State to alter or modify forms of remedies, is unavailing. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court

“ There is no question that the state court gave effect to the Act of 1933, and we are not concerned with any earlier state statute in relation to policies of insurance. [2] The debt of the wife herself, as a member of a business partnership, is involved. We have not been referred to any statute of Arkansas, existing prior to the firm's contract and to the incurring by appellee of the debt in question, which in such a case, either by the terms of the statute or by the construction of it by the state court, precluded resort to insurance moneys such as those in question. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court

“ Appellant responded to the motion to dismiss the garnishment, and to the claim of exemption, by insisting that Act No. 102 (p. 321) of the Laws of 1933, if so applied, contravened article 1, section 10, of the Constitution of the United States by impairing the obligation of appellant's contract. The court of first instance overruling that contention, and holding the insurance moneys to be free from all judicial process, dismissed the garnishment and granted the schedule of exemption. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court

“ The exemption created by the Act of 1933, as to the avails of life insurance policies, is unlimited. There is no limitation of amount, however large. Nor is there any limitation as to beneficiaries, if they are residents of the State. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court

“ We reject as unsound and dangerous doctrine, threatening the stability of the deliberately framed and wise provisions of the Constitution, the notion that violations of those provisions may be measured by the length of time they are to continue r the extent of the infraction, and that only those of long duration or of large importance are to be held bad. ”

Charles Evans Hughes

Summary

Quotes from Worthen Company v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court (Charles Evans Hughes)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature