United States v. Williams, 302 U.S. 46 (1937)

U.S. Supreme Court, (October 15, 1937)

Docket number: 11
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/20018571
Id. vLex: VLEX-20018571

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Harvey Elvin Welch, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald Fritz; Judge de Croat; Madera County Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. Harvey Elvin Welch, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Department of the Army; Special Court Martial, Defendants-Appellees., 909 F.2d 1330 (9th Cir. 1990) Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald Fritz; Judge de Croat; Madera County Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. Harvey Elvin Welch, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Department of the Army; Special Court Martial, Defendants-Appellees.

Constitution of the United States (Annotated) - Section 8: Powers of Congress

U.S. Supreme Court - North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300 (1983)

U.S. Supreme Court - Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46 (1981)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Joseph Gramaglia, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee., 766 F.2d 88 (2nd Cir. 1985)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, 302 U.S. 46 (1937)

[Page 302 U.S. 46, 48]

tiff's interest as beneficiary and, the cancellation not having been ratified by her, defendant was bound to collect the premiums and maintain the insurance by deductions from the pay of the insured. On that basis the court concluded that the insurance remained in force and that plaintiff is entitled to recover.

The opinion strongly puts the considerations that make in favor of plaintiff's claim but neglects the distinction between private employment of minors and their service in army or navy and fails to give effect to the law applicable to contracts of enlistment and to the terms upon which the government granted the war risk insurance here in question. In virtue of its power to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy and to make rules for the government of land and naval forces, the Congress may require military service of adults and minors alike. [Footnote 1] The power of the United States may be exerted to supersede parents' control and their right to have the services of minor sons who are wanted and fit for military service. [Footnote 2] And the Congress may confer upon minors the privilege of serving in land or naval forces, authorize them to enlist, or draft them upon such terms as it may deem expedient and just. [Footnote 3]

[Page 302 U.S. 46, 49]

The statute under which plaintiff's son was accepted declares that minors between ages of 14 and 18 years shall not be enlisted in the navy without the consent of their parents. [Footnote 4] It means that, while minors over 18 may enlist without parental permission, the government elects not to take those between 14 and 18 unless their parents are willing to have them go. It is a determination by Congress that minors over 14 have capacity to make contracts for service in the navy. [Footnote 5] And it is in harmony with rulings under the common law to the effect that enlistment of a minor for military service is not voidable by him or his parents. [Footnote 6] Enlistment is more than a contract; it effects a change of status. [Footnote 7] It operates to emancipate minors at least to the extent that by enlistment they become bound to serve subject to rules governing enlisted men and entitled to have and freely to dispose of their pay. [Footnote 8] Upon enlistment of plain-

[Page 302 U.S. 46, 50]

tiff's son and until his death he became entirely subject to the control of the United States in respect of all things pertaining to or affecting his service.

The statute does not confer upon or leave with the parents any right to condition consent to their sons' enlistment. No act of Congress permits enlistment of minors upon condition or upon the qualified consent of parents nor does any act authorize recruiting officers to bind the United States to carry, or to require an enlisted man to carry, war risk insurance for his own protection or for the benefit of any person. It follows that defendant was not bound by the condition on which the trial court found that the parents consented to the enlistment of their minor son. [Footnote 9]

War risk insurance was made available to those in active military service for the greater protection of themselves and their dependents. [Footnote 10] By the insurance contract, of which applicable provisions of statutes and regulations constitute a part,11 the insured minor was authorized to allot a part of his pay for the payment of premiums,12 to change beneficiaries without their consent13 and to cancel the insurance in whole or in

[Page 302 U.S. 46, 51]

part. [Footnote 14] It follows that the cancelation was valid and plaintiff is not entitled to recover. [Footnote 15]

Reversed. Footnotes

[Footnote *] Rehearing denied 302 U.S. 779, 58 S.Ct. 361, 82 L.Ed. --.

Footnote 1 Tarble's Case (1871) 13 Wall. 397, 408. In re Grimley ( 1890) 137 U.S. 147, 153, 11 S.Ct. 54; Selective Draft Law Cases (1918) , 377-378, 386, 38 S.Ct. 159, L.R.A. 1918C, 361, Ann.Cas.1918B, 856; Hamilton v. Regents (1934) 293 U.S. 245, 262-264, 55 S.Ct. 197, 204; United States v. Blakeney (1847) 3 Grat.(Va.) 405, 408. Lanahan v. Birge (1862) 30 Conn. 438.

Footnote 2 United States v. Bainbridge (1816) 24 Fed.Cas. No. 14,497, p. 950, per Story, J.; The Commonwealth v. Gamble (1824) 11 Serg.&R.(Pa.) 93, 94, per Gibson, J.; Com. ex rel. Engle v. Morris (1852) 1 Philadelphia (Pa.) 381; In the matter of Beswick (1863) 25 How.Prac.(N.Y.) 149, 151; Halliday v. Miller (1887) 29 W.Va. 424, 439, 1 S.E. 821, 6 Am.St.Rep. 653.

Footnote 3 United States v. Bainbridge (1816) 24 Fed.Cas. No. 14,497, p. 950; In re Riley (1867) 20 Fed.Cas.No.11,834, p. 797, per Blatchford, D.J.; In re Davison (C.C.1884) 21 F. 618, 622; In re Cosenow (C.C.1889) 37 F. 668, 670, per Henry Billings Brown, D.J.; United States v. Blakeney (1847) 3 Grat.(Va.) 405, 416; In re Gregg (1862) 15 Wis. 479.

Footnote 4 'No minor under the age of fourteen years shall be enlisted in the naval service; and minors between the age of fourteen and eighteen years shall not be enlisted for the naval service without the consent of their parents or guardians.' 34 U.S.C. 161, 34 U.S.C.A. 161 (see R.S. 1419, 1420, as amended by Acts May 12, 1879, 21 Stat. 3; February 23, 1881 , 2, 21 Stat. 338; August 22, 1912, 2, 37 Stat. 356).

Footnote 5 In re Morrissey (1890) 137 U.S. 157, 159, 11 S.Ct. 57; In re Davison (C.C.1884) 21 F. 618, 623; In re Gregg (1862) 15 Wis. 479; United States v. Blakeney (1847) 3 Grat.(Va.) 405, 414-415; United States v. Bainbridge (1816) 24 Fed.Cas.No.14,497, p. 951.

Footnote 6 In re Morrissey (1890) 137 U.S. 157, 159, 11 S.Ct. 57; United States v. Blakeney (1847) 3 Grat.(Va.) 405, 413.

Footnote 7 In re Grimley (1890) 137 U.S. 147, 151, 11 S.Ct. 54; In re Morrissey (1890) 137 U.S. 157, 159, 11 S.Ct. 57.

Footnote 8 In re Morrissey (1890) , 159-160, 11 S.Ct. 57; In re Miller (C.C.A.1902) 114 F. 838, 842-843; United States v. Reaves (C.C.A.1903) 126 F. 127, 130; United States v. Bainbridge (1816) 24 Fed.Cas.No.14,497, p. 951; Baker v. Baker (1868) 41 Vt. 55, 57; Halliday v. Miller (1887) 29 W.Va. 424, 439, 1 S.E. 821, 6 Am.St.Rep. 653; Gapen v. Gapen (1895) 41 W.Va. 422, 425, 23 S.E. 579; Iroquois Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm. (1920) 294 Ill. 106, 109, 128 N.E. 289, 12 A.L.R. 924; 1 Schouler, Domestic Relations (6th Ed.) 754, p. 820.

Footnote 9 Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States (1917) 243 U.S. 389, 408, 409 S., 37 S.Ct. 387; Wilber Nat. Bank v. United States (1935) 294 U.S. 120, 123, 124 S., 55 S.Ct. 362, 363, 364.

Footnote 10 War Risk Insurance Act of October 6, 1917, 400, 40 Stat. 409.

Footnote 11 White v. United States (1926) , 46 S.Ct. 274; Lynch v. United States (1934) 292 U.S. 571, 577, 54 S.Ct. 840, 842.

Footnote 12 War Risk Insurance Act of October 6, 1917, 202, 40 Stat. 403.

Footnote 13 Id. 402, 40 Stat. 409: 'Subject to regulations, the insured shall at all times have the right to change the beneficiary or beneficiaries of such insurance without the consent of such beneficiary or beneficiaries, but only within the classes herein provided.' Bulletin No. 1, promulgated October 15, 1917: 'The insured may at any time, subject to the regulations of the bureau, change the beneficiary or beneficiaries to any person or persons within the classes permitted by the act, without the consent of the beneficiary or beneficiaries.' Regulations and Procedure, U. S. Veterans' Bureau, 1928 (Washington, 1930) Part 2, pp. 1235, 1237.

Footnote 14 T.D. 48 W.R. provides: 'The yearly renewable term insurance shall ... lapse and terminate ... (c) Upon written request ... to the Bureau ... for cancelation of the insurance, in whole or in part, and corresponding cessation or reduction of the payment of premiums ...' Regulations and Procedure, U.S. Veterans' Bureau, 1928 (Washington, 1930) Part 1, pp. 19-20.

Footnote 15 White v. United States (1926) 270 U.S. 175, 180, 46 S.Ct. 274, 275; Von Der Lippi-Lipski v. United States (1925) 55 App.D.C. 202, 4 F. (2d) 168, 169; United States v. Sterling (C.C.A.1926) 12 F.(2d) 921, 922; Lewis v. United States (C.C.A.1932) 56 F.(2d) 563, 564; Irons v. Smith (C.C.A.1933) 62 F.(2d) 644, 646.

Other documents:
griffin v. the state., 103 ga. app. 48, 118 s.e.2d 301 (1961) | Notice: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppe... | Notice: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Di... | RESOLUCIÓN de 7 de julio de 2008 de la Vicerrectora de Campus de Gipuzkoa de la UPV/EHU por la que se regula y convoca... | RESOLUCIÓN 320/38148/2000, de 31 de marzo, de la Dirección General de Armamento y Material, por la que se renueva la validez de la cert... | RESOLUCIÓN de 8 de febrero de 2008, de la Delegación Provincial de Granada, por la que se publican acto... | RESOLUCION de 19 de abril de 2004, de la Universidad de las Illes Balears, por la que se nombra a dona Margalida... | La primera en el peligro de la libertad | 10 CFR 1042.600 - Covered programs. | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Pamplona/Iruna, Navarra - Sala de lo Social, of Fe... | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Bilbao, Pais Vasco - Sala de lo Conten...