Legal Document

344 U.S. 66 73 Supreme Court Reporter 114 97 L.Ed. 101 UNITED STATESv.HENNING et al. Number 10. Reargued Oct. 14, 1952. Decided Nov. 17, Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, See 910, 327. Mr. Morton Liftin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Richard or Haw. Hawai‘i Reports KFH45 A2 Lee, Boston, Mass., respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Conflicting claims to proceeds a policy National Service Life Insurance frame controversy before us. Disposition cause depends on our interpretation Act 1940, as amended, 38 United States Code KF62 § 801 seq., Annotated KF65 U5 which in pertinent part1 provides: 2 s 602(g). 'The insurance shall be payable only widow, widower, child * *, parent, brother sister insured. The insured have right designate beneficiary beneficiaries insurance, but within classes herein provided *.' 601(f). terms 'parent', 'father', and 'mother' include father, mother, father through adoption, mother adoption (and) persons who stood loco parentis member military naval forces at any time prior entry into active service period not less than one year 3 602(i). 'If no is designated by if does survive insured, determined accordance with order specified subsection (h)(3) this section equal monthly installments (h) *. payment conditioned upon his her being alive receive such payments. No person vested installment paid during beneficiary's lifetime permitted class next entitled priority, 4 602(h)(3). 'Any certain remaining unpaid death an amount first beneficiary, then hereinafter named, unless different order— 5 '(C) child, parent parents last bore that relationship, living, shares; 602(j). 'No heirs legal representatives event survives part thereof made 6 material facts are disputed. Eugene C. Henning, Naval Reservist under $10,000 term named sole beneficiary,2 died July 4, 1945, country's service. Otto Federal KF105 F3 five months later, without having received policy's proceeds. Bessie, second wife insured's stepmother, Clara Belle, former natural survived. Both survivors subsequently filed serviceman's policy. On June 30, 1949, pendency interpleader action judicial determination proper taker, Bessie died, leaving surviving claimant. Government thereupon asserted had borne parental relationship insured; consequently Belle could come statutory devolutionary takers; that, absence cognizable proceeds, they escheat Fund. 7 District Court's judgment, however, divided installments, among three parties.3 court read statute imposing bar award matured estates deceased beneficiaries. It therefore awarded father's estate remained unpaid. And, finding least service, it concluded both she were 'last relationship' thus qualified take devolution 602(h)(3)(C) Act. stepmother's shared equally between Belle; thereafter maturing latter alone. 8 Appeals agreed.4 Conceding literal wording went 'a long way' toward sustaining Government's opposing contentions, court, fearful unfortunate consequences might flow from strict adherence text Act, nevertheless ruled take. noting its disagreement Second Circuit's ruling Baumet versus States,5 further held did necessarily exclude participation same sex also bore' 9 We granted certiorari settle problems important administration resolve conflicting interpretations Courts Appeals. 342 917, 72 365, 96 686. 10 Congress war risk legislation has sought protect financial hardship families those served nation's flag. Comprehensive programs enacted 1917, 1951 reflect consistent legislative concern times crisis. Since public funds meet large programs' cost,6 statutes closely circumscribed permissible takers preclude object congressional draining treasury when hazards multiplied maturities. War Risk 1917 enumerated spouse immediate blood relatives proceeds;7 interest was extinguished death.8 again constricting takers,9 restates purpose In Servicemen's Indemnity previous restrictions once more appear, reiterated flat proviso: 'no person.'10 Accenting these wartime limitations liberalizing after cessation hostilities World Wars & N Immigration Nationality Decisions II placed nearly commercial basis. Amendments 1919 expanded distant and, significantly, go estate.11 This broadening substantially reenacted Veterans' 1924.12 And II, 1946 liberalized benefits As policies August removed choice instances beneficiaries' estates.13 From course unmistakable pattern emerges: Statutes crisis narrow range beneficiaries; post-war broadens it.14 11 Section 602 N.S.L.I. governing distribution here controversy, must meaning historical setting. Cf. Zazove, 1948, 334 602, 68 1284, 92 1601. Subsection (i) conditions 'upon payments'; adds priority (j), so disclaim possible analogy peacetime been construed confer rights,15 emphasizes beneficiary.' contrary, directs 'in made'. 12 face clear language we urged distinguish neither accrued nor intended some reason received. Whereas concededly may pass argued may. For hold otherwise, argument runs, result 'amazing consequences'; government, example, simply withholding payments until unjustly enrich another lower or, none survived, favor purse; moreover, low-priority litigating specious claim profitably suspend higher-priority died. 13 reject conclusion premises. distinction assumes 602(i) their 'being payments' 'it meant something else; exempted, words other indication, yet paid. But strips significance; limited application unmatured strictures would mere surplusage, forbidding what ladder 602(h)(3) logically permit. cannot nullify import (i). drafting 1940 statute, fully cognizant war. well understood prohibit live shares;16 very contention today examined rejected.17 amendments, 1924 specifically altered deliberate result, can aid presented today.18 irresistible law them, said said. Were needed, administrative practice Acts applied estates;19 factor, too, accorded weight. supra; Citizens Loan Trust Co., 1942, 316 209, 62 1026, 86 1387; Madigan, 1937, 300 500, 57 566, 81 767. unmindful fact unanticipated delay withhold him get; seven years deaths brought litigation end. apportion blame cruel delay. surely speculate officials entrusted attempt itself sardonic waiting game. 14 conclude Congress, aware sometimes inevitable delays payment, preferred occasionally harsh permit living members seep down enlarged sub-beneficiaries created testamentary plans. flout purpose, expressed command. Wissner Wissner, 1950, 338 655, 70 393, 94 424. stand. 15 There remains States. contends because death, 'who 602(h)(3)(C); despite she, relationship,' displaced forever lost essence, each contemporaneously test imposed Act; 'last' takes all, exclusion others. since now dead, 16 agree. While merit simplicity, simplicity supplant interpretation. 602(h)(3)(C), confined insured.20 So written proved unsatisfactory practice. construed, provision required though abandoned raised supported wholly foster parents, excluded Act.21 Upon recommendation Administrator, 1942 amended foreclose result. Persons included Act's definition 'parent.' insured,22 essential condition parceling out series transient hosts assure full most likely support. thrust amendment directed inclusion worthy however deserving. 17 ordinarily begin ties, realistically viewed, severed; so, bears ceased truth fact. case, intent amendments demand determination, based realties, status, depend particular peculiarly competence others closer facts. Here found continued observed 'there evidence estrangement, say nothing abandonment, even lack feeling, (the insured) Belle.'23 Unable freeze formula subtle family relations constitute genuine bond, accept courts below deemed continuing son. 18 invoke provisions 602(j) withhold, benefit Fund, date death. follows method 'the whom made', age maturity, subject election optional settlement 602(h)(1) (2) applicable regulations Act.24 19 Reversed. 20 BURTON, CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring dissenting part. 21 agree judgment insofar holds respective However, feel obliged him, parents. That everyone, mother. Consequently, two there contingent beneficiary. Accordingly, should withheld 22 JACKSON, FRANKFURTER dissenting. 23 Perhaps halfhearted dissent, like extemporaneous speech, worth paper upon. do point prefer benign construction complex reasonable. 24 problem recurring sort described Judge Learned Hand follows: 25 issue involves baffling question comes up often all kinds writings; how far realize overriding purpose? idle add acres streams ink devoted discussion. When ask 'intended,' usually answer, mean group actually mind. Flinch may, do, project ourselves, best can, position uttered words, impute them dealt concrete occasion. He supposes he fitted attempt.' Klinger, Cir., 199 Reporter, 2nd Series 645, 648. 26 802(i), emphasis payments.' This, reading, says perfected becomes due whether reduces possession. Under construction, 'right' existence claimant payment. event, think cease 'right.' about case where check sent pay while mails us means accrue fall become right. 27 802(j) taking away 802(i) grants. emphasis: Just 'as such' subtracts debated, phrase, significance context, administrator executor, personal representative collect decedent lifetime. 28 avoid admits capricious seems strange, dealing bereaved makes promise ear broken hope. view, it, actual cancel By adverse claim, fictitious, litigation, frivolous, junior gamble winning himself senior Some know tendency papers shuffle back forth Washington desks time, little staff, everything put risks caused make rights lottery tickets. Beneficiaries dependents, left urgent need red tape litigiousness promised income, hear firm depend? reasoning deny asset needy credit. 29 admittedly fairest statute. allow recover them. alone dissent. 1946, prospectively several respects. 60 Statutes-at-Large 781 seq. govern issue. Subsequently properly changed designation marriage dissolved earlier here. D.C.D.Mass.1950, 93 F.Supp. 380. 1951, 191 588. reversed remanded computation various parties. view disposition concerned holding. 194, granted, 343 925, 764, decided day; 122. E.g., 403, W.R.I.A. 40 410; 802 see 616, 1290, 1601; U.S.C.(Supp. V) 851 seq.; S.Rep.No.91, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.; H.Rep.No.6, Sess. 402, 409. Cassarello States, 271 486; Salzer 764. 602(g), 802(g), 802(g). 3, 852, 852. §§ 13, 19, 41 371, 375, 376. 26, 43 607, 614, 424, 451, 451. 9, 782, 785, 802(g, u), u). testimony Harold W. Breining, Assistant Administrator Insurance, Administration, Hearings Subcommittee Committee Legislation, House Representatives, 79th 2d Sess., H.R. 5772 5773 (p. 1): fundamental reasons liberalization bulk losses came Treasury. Through assumed extra services. major felt want pay, indirectly channel, sums money speculation, wish give distinguished dependent owe semblance moral obligation. These originally eliminated emergency over.' Congressional attitudes enacting see, e.g., 55 Cong.Rec. 6761, 7690, H.R.Rep.No. 130, Pt. Page 5, 65th history contains expression intent. controversial revenue measure consideration. reports accompanying bill became contain reference legislation. A Conference Report page H.R.Rep.No.2894, S.Rep.No.2114, H.R.Rep.No.3002, 76th 3d McCullough Smith, 1934, 293 228, 157, 79 297; cf. cases involving 1925 1310, 514, 514. Treasury Dept., Bureau Division Military Bulletin 1, (1917); D.C.1919, 486. Comp.Dec. 733 (1918); American Bank company 1943, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 243, 134 674; 1939, 472, 121 Law 432, interpreted 516, providing reinstatement lapsed policies, holdings turned section's enumeration restricted class. enactment almost identical portions 602(g) construe today. whatever effects similar cases. Bulletin, note 16, Communication Solicitor General Solicitor, dated March 12, 1952, reprinted Appendix B, Brief (h)(3)(C), 54 1010. S.Rep.No.1430, 77th 2; H.R.Rep.No.2312, Cong.2d 4. 12; 6, 14. 56 659, 801(f), (h)(3)(C). (Supp. 593. 802(h)(1) (2), 802(h)(1, 2); Regulations (1944 Supp.) 10.3475 1945.

Classification Label: 8