Ghingher v. Pearson

Boxn, C. J\,

filed a dissenting opinion as follows, in which Urxer, J., concurred:

The attack on the legislative provision for exemption and priority of state deposits is grounded on constitutional requirements, and in this domain the law imposes on the court an attitude, or an inclination. What the state government in its lawmaking branch has duly decided and declared shall be done must be supported as law if the court can by adoption *309of any reasonable view or theory fit it within the constitutional restrictions. “The judgmeiit of the Legislature that such a regulation is proper and desirable…