Engel v. O'MALLEY
Citations
- 219 U.S. 128
- 31 S. Ct. 190
- 55 L. Ed. 128
- 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1625
Syllabus
<p>The rule, that one not within the class cannot raise objections to the constitutionality of a statute on the ground of discrimination against that class, applied to effect that one who for more than five years has resided in the United States cannot object that a state statute denies equal protection pf the law because it excludes those who have not so resided for .that period.</p> <p>Protection of banking business, especially that transacted in small amounts, (Noble State Bank v. Haskell, ante,, p. 104), and with poor and ignorant immigrants on first arrival in this country is within the police power of the State; and a state statute imposing special and proper restrictions on those engaging in that class of banking is not unconstitutional under the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because it excepts from its provisions other banks and bankers engaged in other classes of banking business or conducting them under other conditions.</p> <p>The receipt- of money by a bank where the depositor can withdraw it when and in such sums as he pleases, although creating a debt, is, in a popular sense, the receipt of money for safe-keeping.</p> <p>Where the subject is within the police protection of the State, it is not for the court to determine whether the enactment is wise or not; that is within legislative discretion.</p> <p>Courts will presume from general knowledge of business affairs that transmission of money through bankers is made bv drafts a.nrl not by sending the identical currency.</p> <p>Legislation which regulates business may well make distinctions depend upon the degree of evil; Heath & Milligan Co. v. Worst, 207 U. S. 338; and, although where size is not an index, a law may not discriminate between the great and the small, proper regulations based thereon where size is an index of the evil to be prevented, do not offend the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.</p> <p>There are always difficulties in drawing
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “The receipt of money by a bank ... is in a popular sense the receipt of money for safekeeping.”
- “The receipt of money by a bank * * * is in a popular sense the receipt of money for safekeeping.”
- Justice Holmes sustaining a $500 transaction exemption from the requirement of licensing in certain monetary transactions on the ground that the legislature may \confine the law as nearly as may be to the class thought by the legislature to need protection\
- refusal to license “for cause” is not arbitrary
- “Depositors place their money in banks primarily for safekeeping.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Holmes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.