MCINTOSH
v.
AUBREY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A pensioner who used federal pension money to purchase real property challenged the seizure and sale of that property on execution, claiming the funds were exempt from attachment under federal law protecting pension payments. The Supreme Court held that the statutory exemption for pension money applies only while the funds remain "due or to become due" and in the course of transmission to the pensioner, not after they have been received and converted into other property such as real estate. Once pension money is paid to and received by the pensioner, it loses its exempt status and becomes subject to creditor claims through legal process.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna' delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error claims that the property having been purchased with pension money it was exempt from seizure and sale on execution under section 4747 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The section is as follows: .
“ No sum of money due, or to become due, to any pensioner, shall be liable to attachment, levy or seizure, by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, whether the same remains with the Pension Office, or any officer or agent thereof, or is in course of transmission to the pensioner entitled thereto, but shall inure wholly to the benefit of such pensioner.”
The language of the section of itself seems to present no difficulty, and if doubt arises at all it is only on account of the decisions of courts whose opinions are always entitled to respect. Crow v. Brown, 81 Iowa, 344; Yates Co. National Bank v. Carpenter, 119 N. Y. 550. But notwithstanding, we think the purpose of Congress is clearly expressed.' It is not that pension money shall be expmpt from attachment in all of its situations and transmutations. It is only to be exempt in one situation, to wit, when “ due or to become due.” From that situation the pension money of plaintiff in error had departed.
The simplicity and directness of the statute are impaired, by attempts to explain it by the use of other terms than its own. That money received is not money due; and that real estate is not money at all would seem, if real distinctions be regarded, as obvious enough without explanation. Nor are legal fictions applicable. Undoubtedly the law often regards money as land and land as money, and, through all the forms in. which property may be put, will, if possible, trace and establish the origi: nal ownership. . But these are special instances depending on special principles, and cannot be made a test of the purpose of Congress in enacting section 4747.
We concur, therefore, with the learned judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, that “ the exemption provided by the act-protects the fund only while in the course of transmission to the pensioner. When the money has been paid to him it has ‘inured wholly to his benefit,’ and is liable to seizure as opportunity presents itself. The pensioner, however, may use the money in any manner, for his own benefit and to secure the comfort of his family, free from the attacks of creditors, and his action in so doing will not be a fraud upon them.”
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Shiras, Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Peckham dissented.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. Theodora M. Baron, 269 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…I do not agree with his interpretation of § 185.25, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., this statute did not exempt the amount in the fund created by employee contributions from equitable attachment when and if received by the employee. Compare: McIntosh v. Aubrey, 185 U.S. 122, 22 S.Ct. 561, 46 L.Ed. 834; Voelkel v. Tohulka, 236 Ind. 588, 141 N.E. 2d 344; and Boylan v. Joyce, 123 N.J.L. 130, 8 A. 2d 108, which holds that statutes of this type are not applicable to trusts established by equity. If Glenn Baron had the righ…
-
Trotter v. Tennessee, 290 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1933)…, 674. On the other hand, they are not to be read so grudgingly as to thwart the purpose of the lawmakers. The moneys payable to this soldier were unquestionably exempt till they came, into his hands or the hands of his guardian. McIntosh v. Aubrey, 185 U.S. 122. We leave the question open whether the exemption remained in force while they continued in those hands or on deposit in a bank. Cf. McIntosh v. Aubrey, supra; State v. Shawnee County Comm’rs, 132 Kan. 233; 294 Pac. 915; Wilson v Sawyer, 177 Ark. 49…
-
Carrier v. Bryant, 306 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1939)…remains with the Pension-Office, or any officer or agent thereof, or is in course of transmission to the pensioner entitled thereto, but shall inure wholly to the benefit of such pensioner.” This section was considered in McIntosh v. Aubrey, (1902) 185 U. S. 122, 124, where it was unsuccessfully claimed that property purchased with pension money could not be seized under an execution. It was there said— “The language of the section of itself seems to present no difficulty, and if doubt arises at all it is…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence