The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-06-12
PENSION BOARD WINS
Supreme Court Decides the
Test Case From Burke
III Pensoner Dies Between the Enrolling Of
His Name and Receipt Of Warrant, It
Must Be Returned,


was decided yesterday by the Supreme
court in favor of the Pension Board.
This was test case, and it settles a
question that has been much discussed
of late in regard TO pensions, namely: if
a pensioner placed on the roll by tho
county board in July should die before
December, the time when the State Aud
itor sends out the warrants, should the
warrant of the deceased be returned to
garded as an asset of the dead pension
er, TO be used by his heirs in paying off
debts, funeral expenses, etc.? The Pen
sion Board directed the registers in the
various counties to return all such war
rants, but the heirs in several cases
claimed them as the property of the de-
ceased
The case of Samuel Smith and others,
from Burke, against the State was made
up and heard first before Judge Council
in Superior Court of Burke, February
term The ruling was against the State,
and an appeal was taken. The case was
argued in Supreme Court by Avery and
Erwin for the pensioners and the Attor
ney General for the BOARD of Pensioners.
The opinion is as follows:
Montgomery J. The matter in con-
troversy was submitted without action
and the agreed facts are few and sim
pie. The several applications OF the de-
ceased pensioners were duly approved
by the Pension Board of Burke county
in July, 1901, and the same were ccrti-
fled as being correct and just" under
the act and thereupon the State Board
of Pensions, on the first day of Deccm-
Der following, not knowing that the pen
sioDers had died since their applications
had been certified and filed. issued in
their names pension warrants under the
act of 1899, and the same are now in the
bands of the Register of Deeds of Burke.
The question for decision is whether
these warrants are assets of the estate of
the deceased pensioners or whether they
must be returned to the department of
the Auditor for cancellation. If pen
sions are granted in aid of the pension
ers for their future support for the year
ensuing then these warrants are to be re-
turned to the Auditor; if they are grant
ed to reimburse and compensate the pen
sioners for money paid out by them for
their past support then the warrants are
assets of their estates Pensions are
personal to the pensioners and they are
not granted alone on the consideration
of meritorious services rendered the pub
lie. but they are granted because of the
necessities, condition and circumstances
of the pensioners. They arc not prizes
or rewards, but they are charitable gifts
because OF INDECENT circumstances of
the pensioners. If any authority were
needed for the correctness of the defini-
tion ii will be found on reference to
section of chapter 19S of the act of
1889, which reads as follows: THAT no
officer, soldier, sailor or widow holding
rational, State or county office which
pays annually salary or fees in the
sum of three hundred dollars. or who
owns, in his or her own right of his wife,
property of the value of five hundred
: dollars, as assessed for taxation. or who
is receiving aid from the State under any
act providing for the relief of soldiers
who are blind or manned, shall be en-
titled to any of the benefits OF this act.
The purpose of pension then is to
by means of the gift and it is not intend
ed as reimbursement for money al
ready extended by the pensioner in his
support. We think therefore that the
position of the State Board of Pensions
that rersion warrants under our statue
and generally, are for the ensuing year,
is a correct one: and as the pensioners
were dead when the warrants were is
sued Ii follows that the warrants should
be returned to the Auditor for cancella-
ton. If the pensioners had been living
a. the time the warrants were issued but
had died before they had received the
vGITar is, then the warrants would, uu-
der section IL of the act have been as
sets of the estates of the pensioners. The
statute in substance provides for the is
suing of only one warrant to each pen
sioner annually-and that for the whole
amount of the pension. and as we have
said. for the ensuing year: and we cannot
see that chapter 22S of the acts of 1885
can be of any force CT effect.
Uron the agreed facts the judgment
should have been for the State Board of
Pensions. and that the warrants SHOULD
be- returned to the Auditor. Reversed.
rather interesting case from Wake
was also decided yesterday. 1t was the
Commercial and Farmers Bank against
Vass an agreed case to determine which
of two mortgages was the first The SUI
perior courtu had held that Mr.. Vass'
was the first, but the Supreme court re
versed this ruling. 1t seems that the
bank had recorded its instrument three
minutes before Mr.. Vass.