Carrier v. Bryant, 541
| Decision Date | 17 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 541,541 |
| Citation | 83 L.Ed. 976,306 U.S. 545,59 S.Ct. 707 |
| Parties | CARRIER et al. v. BRYANT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. John W. Wood, of Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Mr. Frederick D. Hamrick, Jr., of Rutherfordton, N.C., for respondent.
The Supreme Court, North Carolina, ruled that negotiable notes and United States bonds purchased, and held as investments, for an incompetent World War veteran by his guardian out of 'payments of benefits' authorized under laws relating to such veterans, were subject to execution upon a judgment against the incompetent. Petitioners challenge that view and claim immunity under section 3, Act August 12, 1935 (c. 510, 49 Stat. 607, 609, 38 U.S.C.A. § 454a):
Act, 1924, are hereby repealed, and all other Acts inconsistent herewith are hereby modified accordingly. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the assignment by any person, to whom converted insurance shall be payable under title III of the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, of his interest in such insurance to any other member of the permitted class of beneficiaries. * * *
The conclusion below is supported by McCurry v. Peek, 1936, 54 Ga.App. 341, 187 S.E. 854, the only other opinion squarely upon the point here involved which has been called to our attention.
The language of section three, although not entirely felicitous, conflicts with the petitioners' insistence.
The first sentence grants exemption from taxation, claims of creditors, attachment, levy or seizure under any legal process whatever. The things exempted are 'payments of benefits' due or to become due either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.
Investments purchased with money received in settlement of benefits are not such payments due or to become due. Accordingly, giving the words employed their ordinary meaning, the notes and bonds in question are not exempted by the first sentence in section three. It left them, like other property, subject to taxation, claims of creditors, and legal process.
The second sentence in the section clearly recognizes the distinction between benefit payments and property purchased with money therefrom. It declares the exemption provisions in the first sentence shall not attach to claims of the United States; also that exemption from taxation shall not extend to property purchased out of benefit payments. Nothing is said concerning claims of creditors. Nevertheless, petitioners seem to maintain, immunity from these must be inferred. But a mere declaration that investments always subject to taxation shall not enjoy exemption therefrom affords no basis for holding them free from claims of creditors. Although the first sentence extended no immunity to investments, apparently out of abundant caution, the second declared them subject to taxation.
We find nothing in the history or supposed purpose of the enactment adequate to support a construction not in accord with the ordinary import of the words employed.
Under Spicer v. Smith, 1933, 288 U.S. 430, 434, 53 S.Ct. 415, 416, 77 L.Ed. 875, 84 A.L.R. 1525, payment of benefits to the guardian vested title in the ward. The exemptions of the statute would not be different if the ward had personally received the payments.
Section 4747 Revised Statutes, Act March 3, 1873 (38 U.S.C.A. § 54) remained in force until repealed by Act August 12, 1935. It provided '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.'
This section was considered in McIntosh v. Aubrey, 1902, 185 U.S. 122, 124, 22...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. Reed
...provisions of the section have been recognized and enforced. Barton v. United States, D.C., 75 F.Supp. 703, 705; Carrier v. Bryant, 306 U.S. 545, 548, 59 S.Ct. 707, 83 L.Ed. 976.' In Barton v. United States, cited supra, it is said 'Federal control of title to the proceeds of service insura......
-
Matter of Wickstrom, Bankruptcy No. GM 87-00167
...three. It left them, like other property, subject to taxation, claims of creditors, and legal process. Carrier v. Bryant, 306 U.S. 545, 547, 59 S.Ct. 707, 708, 83 L.Ed. 976 (1939). Even assuming arguendo that the proceeds from a worker's compensation award retain their exempt status, an oth......
-
In re Bagnall's Guardianship
...case before us the property of the ward in the possession of his guardian, is of the same character as that which was involved in the Carrier case, supra. The items of property and the amounts thereof are set out in the stipulation of the parties. They are bonds of the United States and, om......
-
U.S. v. Griffith
...[to taxation and attachment] where it would otherwise attach." Id. However, the Court later explained in Carrier v. Bryant, 306 U.S. 545, 547, 59 S.Ct. 707, 83 L.Ed. 976 (1939), that "[i]nvestments purchased with money received in settlement of benefits" do not retain their exempt The statu......
-
Chapter 36 - § 36.3 • MECHANICS OF THE USFSPA
...they retain the quality of monies and have not been converted into permanent investments. And in an earlier decision, Carrier v. Bryant, 306 U.S. 545 (1939), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that disability benefits invested in property no longer fell within the immunizing language because ......