Tinker v. Colwell
Headline: A husband’s civil award for another man’s sexual relations with his wife is not wiped out by that man’s bankruptcy, so such damage judgments can survive and still be enforced against the wrongdoer.
Holding: The Court held that a civil judgment for damages after another man had sexual relations with a husband’s wife is not wiped out by the wrongdoer’s bankruptcy because it counts as a willful and malicious injury.
- Stops debtors from discharging adultery damage judgments in bankruptcy.
- Allows husbands to keep and enforce civil awards for criminal conversation.
- Maintains that intentional wrongful acts can be excepted from bankruptcy relief.
Summary
Background
A husband sued and won money after another man had sexual relations with the husband’s wife. The man who lost the lawsuit later went through bankruptcy and claimed the money judgment should be wiped out by his bankruptcy discharge. The legal question was whether that judgment fell into an exception for "willful and malicious" injuries under the 1898 Bankruptcy Act.
Reasoning
The Court focused on whether the husband’s civil claim for "criminal conversation" counts as a willful and malicious injury that the statute excepts from discharge. The majority explained that the husband has exclusive personal rights in his wife’s marital relations and that another man’s intercourse invades those rights. Historically such claims were treated like personal assaults or trespass, and the Court said the law treats the act as intentional and wrongful. The Court adopted a common-law meaning of malice as an intentional wrongful act done without just cause, and held that the judgment for criminal conversation therefore fits the statutory exception and is not released by bankruptcy.
Real world impact
This ruling means men who have civil judgments against them for having sexual relations with another person’s wife cannot eliminate those debts simply by declaring bankruptcy. It preserves the husband’s ability to enforce and collect such awards. The decision affirms the lower court’s order refusing to release that particular judgment from bankruptcy discharge.
Dissents or concurrances
Three Justices (Brown, White, and Holmes) dissented, but the opinion text does not give their reasons.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?