| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. David M. Hughes, Robert Sewall, and Franklin Hudson (by his tutor Holmes Hutchinson), the court was asked to decide whether a minor could be held liable for damages caused by an illegal act he committed while in partnership with two adults. The three defendants had entered into a contract that was prohibited under federal law and as such were found guilty of violating it. In its ruling, the court determined that although minors are not generally responsible for their actions when they enter into contracts or other agreements, this particular situation warranted holding all parties accountable since they acted together in violation of federal law. Furthermore, it ruled that even though Franklin Hudson was only 16 years old at the time of entering into this agreement he should still be held liable for any damages resulting from his involvement in it due to his knowledge and understanding of what he was doing at the time.
In the case of The United States v. David M. Hughes, Robert Sewall, and Franklin Hudson by his tutor Holmes Hutchinson, the dissenting opinion was that Congress had no authority to pass a law which allowed for an appeal from a decision made in admiralty court. This opinion argued that appeals should only be available when authorized by statute or common law; however, this particular act did not provide any such authorization and thus could not be enforced as it violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Furthermore, it was argued that if Congress were able to pass laws allowing for appeals without proper authorization then they would have too much power over judicial proceedings and decisions - something which is expressly forbidden under Article III of the Constitution. Ultimately, this dissent concluded that while there may have been good intentions behind passing this act into law its unconstitutionality meant it must be struck down in order to protect our system of checks and balances between branches of government.