the abstra&,,opshtod up&: the usual and typicalmutual Insurancecontractand mutual insuranceassociation,regarding which, under the law in Texas,a rednotionin benefitswould oonstitutea re- pudiationof the contraat.
NanifortlySeotion17 of Senate Ei.11136 aannotbe held oonsti- tutional.becauseperhapq,asto soms oontraotsaud as to some assoaiations,it euthorieeswhat otherwiseoould be done under the particularaontraotwhen, as to other contracts,It authorlaosan impairmentof the obligationsthereof0 In its broad application,and under the oases In Texas, Seotloa17 of said Bill 135 indisputablyauthorlEesthe impairmentof obligationsof coritsaot.This being true, the fundamentalquestionis whether or net the Aot maybe upheld as a valid exeroiseof the police pewer of the State.
Certainly,strong and persuaslvooonsideratlcnaexist in justifioationof the oxerolsoof the pelioopewer representedin Seotion17 of Senate Pill 135. mtthe SupremeCourt of Tens has unequivrrallyheld that the rightsrnd gua~ntoos oxooptedfrom the powers of gororrmkentby the Bill of RQhts, and speoifioallythe prohibitionthereinagainst any law impairingthe obligationof oontraats,is superiorto and is not sub- ject to, the poIioe power of the State. Travelers'InsuranceCompanyv. Marshall,76 S.W. (Zd) 1007, 124 Texas 45. Langeverv. Miller, 76 S.W. (2d) ~-1025,124 Texas 80. In the secondmentionedease, Chief JusticeCureton said8 Hon. 0. Pa Lockhart,page 3 (0.37634)
'In the oasc of Travelers*Dsuranoe'CempanyV. ldarshall, this day deoided (ante p. 45), we held that the existenceof the $resentindustrialdepres- sion, graphicallydescribedin the emergencyclause tothe measure before us, does not authorizethe Legislature&or the police power *one of the general pcwersofgovemment,* to enaeb even emergencylegislationof a lim- ited durationImpairingthe ebligationof oc?Aractsi That opinionis con- tmlling here, and if the lictbefore ue *5m&rs the obligationof contracts' it is unconstitutional and void, regardleseef tie occasionof its enact- ment.* (Cnderscering Itallos)
In +As Travelmet Inmraaoe ease Judge Curetondealered:
We recognize,ef course,that the police p-r ie broad and comprehensive; but the Constitutionforbidsits exercise when the resultwould 'bethe de- struotionof the rlghts,guaranteoa,privileges , end restrains aaceptedfrom the pcwers of governmentby the Xl1 of Bights. . . .
"Sincethe impairmentof tie obligationof contractsis prohibitedby Sec- tion 16, Cuticle 1 of the Roll of Rights,without any specifiedexception in favor of legislativeaction to the contraryduring industrialdepressions or emergencyperiods,We are without~pmer tc write such an exceptioninte the orgraiolaw. A8 said by one of the Toxahrauthoritiespreviouslycited:
*The enaotmentof laws Impairingthe obligationof contracts Is farbiddenby Section16 of &tIcle 1 of the Constitution of Texas, . . . The limitationthus ImporodIs cmphatlo, utmm%igueurand without oxooption2it appliesalike to all contracts and proteotnall obllgationucf oeatraotafrcau de- etruotlon or ImpeIrmentby subeequontlegirlation. . . .'" (Uhdemooring ItalIce)
And the SuprapeCourt rerohti Itr oonoluslonrin theso two oaaea notr rlthafmding, ad riter rooognirlng tho UnitedBtatea SupremeCourt cake of Home milding and Loan Atm~IatIono. Rlrledell,290 U.'S. 396, 64 Supreme Court 231, 76 L. Rd. 41S, 66 A.L.B. 1461.
The rainingof ratoi aride,we aro'beundby the law In Toxar that the roduotionof 'beaefltr I!ia muhtti Inruranoooonfraotoonstltutoran Impair- ment of the obligationaof euch ecntrabtc In SupremeCouncilAmerioanLegI- on of Hcnor V. Ratte, 79 8.W. 629, It was raid:
aLa our opinion,h-or, tho enactmentof this by-law constituteda aubsten- tlal regudlatlonof the coatraotr Tho benefit certificateupon its face pro- vided fcsrthe paymentof the suMof #S,W,out of the benefitfund of the order. The by-lawwas, In effect,an announoemcntthat the appellantwould only pay $2,OCO out of