White v. United States, 270 U.S. 175 (1926). · Go Syfert
Search
White v. United States, 270 U.S. 175 (1926). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
421 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 67 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wicktor v. County of Los Angeles (calctapp, 1960-01-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1926 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1926 1976 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wicktor v. County of Los Angeles
Cal. Ct. App. · 1960 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
(Aguilar v. United States, 226 F.2d 414 , cert. den. 351 U.S. 955 [ 76 S.Ct. 852 , 100 L.Ed. 1478 ]; Kendig v. Kendig, 170 F.2d 750, 751 ; cf. Shack v. United States, 234 F.2d 934, 936 .)” These rulings grow out of the view expressed by Mr. Justice Holmes in White v. United States, 270 U.S. 175, 180 [ 46 S.Ct. 274 , 70 L.Ed. 530 ], where, speaking of War Risk Insurance, he said: “The language is very broad and does not need precise discussion when the nature of the plan is remembered.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kauffman v. Kauffman
Cal. Ct. App. · 1949 · confidence medium
(White v. United States, 270 U.S. 175, 180 [ 46 S.Ct. 274 , 70 L.Ed. 530 ]; Barton v. United States, 75 F.Supp. 703, 704 .) In the latter case, page 705, it was held that the National Life Insurance Act of 1940 [56 Stats. 659], 38 United States Codes Annotated, sections 801-818, is a constitutional exercise of the powers granted to Congress, citing United States Constitution, article I, section 8, clauses 1, 13, and as such is the supreme law of the land, if Congress so willed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jackson
10th Cir. · 1929 · confidence medium
It can be held only to the extent that it has expressly consented to be held upon contracts of this nature.” In the case of White v. United States, 270 U. S. 175 , at page 180, 46 S. Ct. 274, 275 ( 70 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States ex rel. Finley v. Hines
D.C. Cir. · 1928 · confidence medium
The original act of 1917 and subsequent amendatory acts conferred upon the Bureau the authority to revise an award at any time, in accordance with, the facts found, and to end, diminish, or increase compensation previously awarded. * * * The statute, which creates the asserted right, commits to the Director of the Bureau the duty and authority of administering its provisions and deciding all questions arising under it; and in the light of the prior decisions of this court we must hold that his decision of such questions is final and conclusive, and not subject to judicial review, at least unle…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. United States
D. Kan. · 1928 · confidence medium
In White v. United States, 270 U. S. 180 , 46 S. Ct. 274, 275 ( 70 L.
examined Cited "see" Karen Gordon v. R. James Nicholson (4×)
Vet. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. United States, 270 U.S. 175 , 46 S.Ct. 274 , 70 L.Ed. 530 (1926); Wolfe v. Gober, 11 Vet.App. 1, 2 (1997).
examined Cited "see" Fagan v. West (3×)
Vet. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. United States, 270 U.S. 175, 180 , 46 S.Ct. 274 , 70 L.Ed. 530 (1926); Wolfe v. Gober, 11 Vet.App. 1, 2 (1997); Collins, 161 F.2d at 67 . “[T]he insurer has no interest in the matter except in carrying out the intentions of its policyholder.” John Hancock Mutual Life Ins.
examined Cited "see" Kane v. United States (3×)
2d Cir. · 1958 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. United States, 1926, 270 U.S. 175 , 46 S.Ct. 274 , 70 L.Ed. 530 ; United States v. Morrell, 4 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 490 , 36 A.L.R.2d 1374 , certio-rari denied 346 U.S. 875 , 74 S.Ct. 128 , 98 L.Ed. 383 .
examined Cited "see" Kane v. United States (3×)
2d Cir. · 1958 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. United States, 1926, 270 U.S. 175 , 46 S.Ct. 274 , 70 L.Ed. 530 ; United States v. Morrell, 4 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 490 , 36 A.L.R.2d 1374 , certiorari denied 346 U.S. 875 , 74 S.Ct. 128 , 98 L.Ed. 383 . 4 In defense to the mother's action the Government urges that after receipt by the Veterans' Administration of the form the insured executed on March 17 it was legally obligated to pay the accumulated dividends to him without any deduction for any unpaid premiums.
examined Cited "see" United States v. Morrell (3×)
4th Cir. · 1953 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. United States, 270 U.S. 175, 180 , 46 S.Ct. 274 , 70 L.Ed. 530 , where the court spoke of the relation of benevolence manifested in the government’s patent concern for the' soldier’s good, and United States v. Zazove, 334 U.S. 602, 610 , 68 S.Ct. 1284, 1288 , 92 L.Ed. 1601 , where the distinction between government and commercial insurance contracts was pointed out and it was also said that “The statutory provisions, where .ambiguous, are to be construed liberally to effectuate the beneficial purposes that Congress had in mind.” The interpretation of the statute now offere…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Citizens Loan & Trust Co.
SCOTUS · 1942 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. United States, 270 U. S. 175, 180 . 8 Although, the Veterans Bureau denied recovery on the policy in 1920, it was not until 1925 that this suit was instituted.
discussed Cited "see" Porter v. Watson
Ga. Ct. App. · 1935 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. U. S., 270 U. S. 175 (46 Sup. Ct. 274), and U. S. v. Barker, 70 Fed. (2d) 1002, where in his opinion Judge Sibley pointed out that claimants of such insurance have no vested rights therein, and, until actual payment, the benefits of the insurance are by its terms subject to change and control by Congress.
examined Cited "see" United States v. Sellers (3×)
5th Cir. · 1935 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. United States, 270 U. S. 175 , 46 S. Ct. 274 , 70 L.
cited Cited "see" Monzillo v. Pelosi
Conn. · 1933 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. United States, 270 U. S. 175, 180 , 46 Sup. Ct. 274.
discussed Cited "see" Price v. McConnell (2×)
Va. · 1929 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. United States, 270 U. S. page 175, 46 S. Ct. 274 , 70 L.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Bartee v. United States (3×)
6th Cir. · 1932 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare White v. United States, 270 U. S. 175 , 46 S. Ct. 274 , 70 L.
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Johnson (3×)
W.D. Ky. · 1931 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare White v. United States, 270 U. S. 175 , 46 S. Ct. 274 , 70 L.
WHITE
v.
UNITED STATES Et Al.
177.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 1, 1926.
270 U.S. 175
Mr. A. T. Gordon, with whom Mr. R. L. Gordon, Jr., was orí the brief, for appellant., Solicitor General Mitchell, with whom Assistant Attorney General Letts, and Messrs. Alfred A. Wheat and William M. Offley, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, were on the brief, for appellees.
Holmes.
Cited by 158 opinions  |  Published
[*179] Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

George White, a soldier in the American army during the late war, on July 1, 1918, took out insurance upon his life for $10,000 under the War Risk Insurance Act of October 6, 1917, c. 105, Article IV, § 400 ; 40 Stat. 398, 409. He designated his mother, the appellant, as beneficiary, but by a letter of the same date, since established as his will, he provided that one-half of the sums paid should go to his aunt, Lucy Reeves, who at that time was not among those to whom the statute allowed the policy to be made payable. § 401. He died on October 4, 1918, and thereafter monthly installments of $57.50 were paid to. the mother through January, 1921. The award of the whole to her then was suspended on the ground that by the will the aunt was entitled to one-half. The Act of December 24,1919, c. 16, § 13; 41 Stat. 371, 375, had enlarged the permitted class of beneficiaries to include aunts among others and had provided that the section should be deemed to be in effect as of October 6, 1917, and, with proper safeguards, that awards of insurance should be revised in accordance with the amended act. On October 9, 1923, the mother filed a. petition under7 § 405 f the Act of 1917 and the Act of May 20, 1918, c. 77; 40 Stat. 555, to establish her claim to the whole, and set up that to give effect to the Act of 1919 would be to deprive her of her property without due process of law contrary to the Constitution of the United States. The District Court decided in favor of the aunt. 299 Fed. 855. Mrs. White appealed to this Court in August, 1924, and it fairly may be assumed that the Act of March 4, 1925, c. 553; 43 Stat. 1302, 1303, giving the appellate jurisdiction to the Circuit Court of Appeals does not apply.

Mrs. White’s argument, of course, is that, although the statute allowed a beneficiary to be named by will, it did[*180] not extend the benefit to aunts, so that her son’s will was ineffective at the time when it was established; that therefore the mother’s interest vested as absolute at the son’s death, and could not be defeated by later legislation. But this argument fails when the precise position of the parties is understood.

The certificate of insurance provided in terms that it should be “ subject in all respects to the provisions of such Act [of 1917], of any amendments thereto, and of all regulations thereunder, now in force or hereafter adopted, all of which, together with the application for this insurance, and the terms and conditions published under authority of the Act, shall constitute the contract.” These words must be taken to embrace. changes in the law no less than changes'in the regulations. The form was established by the Director with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury and on the authority of Article I, § 1, and Article IV, § 402, of the Act, which, we have no doubt, authorized it. The language is very broad and does not need precise discussion when the nature of the plan is remembered. The insurance was a contract, to be sure, for which a premium was paid, but it was not one entered into by the United States for gain. All soldiers were given a right to it and the relation of the Government to them if not paternal was at least avuncular. It was a relation of bénevolence established by the Government at considerable cost to itself for the soldier’s good. It was a new experiment in which changes might be found necessary, or at least, as in this case, feasible more exactly to carry out his will. If the soldier was willing to put himself into the Government’s hands to that extent no one else could complain. The only relations of contract were between the Government and him. White’s mother’s interest at his death was vested only so far as he and the Government had made it so, and was subject to any conditions upon which they might agree. They[*181] did agree to terms that cut her rights down to one-half. She is a volunteer and she cannot claim more. See Helm holz v. United States, 294 Fed. 417, affirming 283 Fed. 600. Gilman v. United States, 294 Fed. 422, affirming 290 Fed. 614.

Judgment affirmed.