|
|
Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U.S. 370 (1924)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U.S. 370 (1924)
Dillingham v. McLaughlin Nos. 690 and 691 Argued March 17, 1924 Decided April 7, 1924 264 U.S. 370
APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
1. Business so nearly akin to banking as to be equally clothed with a public interest may be brought under state supervision by confinement to corporations. P. 373.
2. So held of a business, conducted by a common law trust, of soliciting and receiving loans in small monthly payments under loan contracts which entitled the respective lenders, when they had paid in a stated percentage, to borrow the face value of their contracts in the order of their applications therefor on real estate security, or, upon sale of this borrowing right, to receive the amounts paid in on their contracts with a problematical "bonus," or, by paying up contracts in full, to receive back their face value with a share in a "surplus," with provisions as to forfeiture, etc. Id.
3. A law of New York forbidding any individual, partnership, or unincorporated association to engage in the business of receiving deposits or payments of money in installments, for cooperative, mutual loan, savings, or investment purposes in sums of less than $500 each held not violative of the Equal Protection Clause in not applying to the business of receiving larger deposits in view of the greater protection needed by small investors and the elements of chance, risk, and delay to investors existing in this case. P. 374.
4. A party as to whom a statute is not unduly discriminative cannot contest its constitutionality upon the ground that it discriminates unduly against others. Id.
5. The operation of reasonable state laws for the protection of the public cannot be headed off by making contracts reaching into the future. Id.
Reversed.
Cross-appeals from a decree of the district court in a suit brought by Dillingham et al., trustees, against New York officials to enjoin them from enforcing a New York statute making the continuance of the plaintiffs’ business a misdemeanor. Laws, N.Y. 1923, c. 895.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U.S. 370 (1924) in 264 U.S. 370 264 U.S. 371. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=D5DPDEIKS32NKSE.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U.S. 370 (1924), in 264 U.S. 370, page 264 U.S. 371. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=D5DPDEIKS32NKSE.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U.S. 370 (1924). cited in 1924, 264 U.S. 370, pp.264 U.S. 371. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=D5DPDEIKS32NKSE.
|