CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

Authors

John W. Potter, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Appellant was indicted under a Georgia statute which provided that anyone who contracted to perform services of any kind with the intent not to perform such services was subject, upon conviction, to fine and /or imprisonment. Proof of the contract, procurement of money or any other thing of value, and the failure to perform the service or to return the money advanced without good and sufficient cause were stated to be presumptive evidence of the requisite intent. Appellant claimed that the statute violated the Thirteenth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state court held the act was not illegal since it provided punishment only for fraud. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that, since the presumptive evidence clause permitted the jury to convict on proof of the contract, breach, and failure to return the advancement, or to perform, without a good and sufficient cause, the threat of punishment resulted in involuntary servitude repugnant to the Thirteenth Amendment. Taylor v. Georgia, 315. U.S. 25, 62 S. Ct. 415 (1942).

Recommended Citation

John W. Potter, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, 41 Mich. L. Rev. 164 (1942).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol41/iss1/13