The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1902-05-08
PENSION MONEY.
Supreme Court Holds That Sec
ton 4747, r. S., Does Not Pro-
tect After II Has Been Paid
to PenSiOner.
SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATE:
No. 1O7.-october Term, 1901.


| Sarah J. Mcintosh, plaintiff in error, VS..
r. l.. Aubrey. In error to the Supreme
Court of the State of Pennsylvania.
april I, 1922
This action presents the question OF the
liability of real estate purchased with pen
sion money, to be taken on execution to
satisfy a claim of a creditor. The action
is ejectment based on title derived from
sale under such an execution, and was
| brought in the Court of Common Pleas of
| Fayette County, State of Pennsylvania
| The case was submitted upon the follow
ing statement of facts:
1T is agreed that title to the premises
in dispute was in Samuel B. G.. Jobes on
the 9th day of September, A. ID. 1882
| That on that date the said Jobes conveyed
the same to the defendant, Sarah j. Nc
lntosh, by deed duly executed and deliv
cred, under which deed she now claims
the said property. That Sarah J. McIn-
tosh's husband, - Mcintosh, was n
soldier in the volunteer service of the
| United States. and that after his death
| the Government granted pension to the
said Sarah j. Mcintosh, widow as afOre-
said, and transmitted to her the money,
which she herself received and retained in
her own possession for several months,
after which the said pension money was
paid to said Jobes as the purchase money
for the said property by the said Sarah
j. Mcintosh, defendant. The said prop
erty was sold to the plaintiff at Sheriff'S
sale, under regular process of execution,
on the 2Sth day Of August, 1897, and a
sheriff's deed for the same was acknowl-
edged and delivered to the plaintiff by
Fred s. Chalfant, esq, High Sheriff of
Fayette County, Pa, on Sept. 8, 1897.
That this process was issued on the
following judgments, viz: l.. L. Clay
baugh for use Of 4. J.. Aubrey surviv-
Sarah J. Mcintosh, at No. 427 March
term of 1892; judgment Of r. l.. Aubrey,
surviving partner of Aubrey & Son VS.. J.
b. Swogger and Mrs. Sarah J. Mcintosh
aforesaid, at No. 11S June term, 1896, and
Judgment of X. L. Aubrey, surviving part
ner of Aubrey & Son, VS.. Sarah ]. Nc
Intosh aforesaid at No. 27S December
term, 1892, of the Common Pleas Court
of Fayette County aforesaid.
That this action of ejectment is
brought by the plaintiff to recover the said
property from the defendants, under the
said deed Of the said Sheriff to him.
THAT the first knowledge of the plain
tiff that the said property was purchased
with pension money was after the said
executions were in the hands Of the said
Sheriff and had been duly levied upon the
said real estate.
That the said r. L. Aubrey, surviving
partner of the said Aubrey & Son, plain
tiff in the said judgments and executions,
is the plaintiff in this action.
IF, under the facts as hereinbefore
stated, the court shall be of opinion that
the said property was not liable to the said
executions and sale, by reason of the
same having been bought with pension
money, Judgment shall be entered upon
this case stated, in favor of the defend
ants.
But if the court shall be Of opinion
that the said property was not so exempt,
then judgment shall be entered for the
plaintiff, with leave TO both parties to
take exceptions and appeals"
Judgment passed for the plaintiff in the
action, defendant in error here, and was
affirmed by the Superior Court of the
State. From the Judgment of the latter
court the Supreme Court refused to allow
an appeal. This writ of error was then
sued out.
Mr.. Justice McKenna delivered the
opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error claims that the
property having been purchased with pen
sion 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
attachment, levy or seizure, by or under
any legal or equitable process whatever,
whether the same remains with the Pen
sion Office, or any officer or agent thereof,
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 al
ways entitled to respect. Gross VS..
Brown. 81 Iowa, 344: Yates Co. National
Bank VS.. Carpenter, 119 \. Y, 500 But
Notwithstanding, we think the purpose of
Congress is clearly expressed. 1t is not
that pension money shall be exempt from
attachment in all of its situations and
demonstrations. 1t 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 de-
parted.
The simplicity and directness OF the
statute are impaired by attempts to eI-
plain 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 re-
gaTded. as obvious enough without eXpla-
nation. Ncc 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, VIII. III possible. trace ana eStaDllSn
the original ownership. But these are
special instances depending on special
principles. and cannot be made a test of
the purpose of Congress in enacting sec
ton 4147.
We concur, therefore, with the learned
judge of the Court Of Common Pleas Of
Pennsylvania, that "the exemption pro-
vided 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 Injured wholly to his
benefit and is liable to seizure as oppor
tunity presents itself. The pensioner, how
ever. may use the money in any manner,
for his own benefit and to secure the COM
fort of his family, free from the attacks Of
creditors, and his action in SO doing will
not be fraud upon them"
Judgment affirmed.
Mr.. Justice Shiras, Mr.. Justice White,
and Mr.. Justice Peckham dissented.