District of Columbia v. Reilly, 13640.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 13640.,13640. |
| Citation | 249 F.2d 524,102 US App. DC 9 |
| Parties | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellant, v. James T. REILLY, Committee for Bryan Andrew Reid, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Messrs. William W. Pavis and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corporation Counsel, and Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corporation Counsel, were on the brief, for appellant.
Messrs. F. J. Fitzgerald, Chief Attorney, Veterans Administration, and Edward E. Odom, Jr., Asst. Chief Attorney, Veterans Administration, Bethesda, Md., filed a memorandum on behalf of Mr. H. V. Higley, Administrator of Veterans Administration, as amicus curiæ, urging affirmance.
Messrs. William F. Hickey and Francis W. Stover, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States as amicus curiæ, urging affirmance.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
Appellee, the committee of a patient in St. Elizabeths Hospital, has funds that were duly paid to appellee by the Veterans Administration because the patient is a veteran. Appellee has no other funds of the patient. With irrelevant exceptions, the Veterans Act provides that payments of benefits "to, or on account of, a beneficiary under any of the laws relating to veterans shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claims of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary." 38 U.S.C.A. § 454a; 49 Stat. 609, as amended, 54 Stat. 1195.
The District of Columbia brought this suit to require appellee to reimburse it for payments it formerly made to the Hospital for the patient's maintenance and treatment. With respect to payments made before the committee was appointed, the court denied the claim and the District appeals. The court was clearly right, despite the statutes, D.C. Code (1951) § 21-307, 33 Stat. 740;1 D.C.Code (1951) § 21-318, 53 Stat. 1298, that require a committee to pay the District for an incompetent's care. In the circumstances of this case the Veterans Act, which we have quoted, forbids recovery on the appealed claim.
With respect to payments made by the District after the committee was appointed, the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Amore
...costs from veteran's benefit checks. Savoid v. District of Columbia, 288 F.2d 851, 852 (D.C.Cir.1961); District of Columbia v. Reilly, 249 F.2d 524, 525 (D.C.Cir.1957); In re Lewis' Estate, 287 Mich. 179, 283 N.W. 21 (1938); In re Matter of Guardianship of Dugan, 29 Misc.2d 980, 222 N.Y.S.2......
-
Nelson v. Heiss
...remained subject to the call of the veteran, or his guardian, and could not be touched. Id.; see also District of Columbia v. Reilly, 249 F.2d 524, 525 (D.C. Cir. 1957) (per curiam). That does not offer much solace to the Prison Officials. Reasonably enough, the Prison Officials then argue ......
-
Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board
...of respondent's claim. 5 Supra, n. 3. 6 See Savoid v. District of Columbia, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 39, 288 F.2d 851; District of Columbia v. Reilly, 102 U.S.App.D.C., 9, 249 F.2d 524. See decision below, 59 N.J. 75, 85, 279 A.2d 806, 812. ...
-
Savoid v. District of Columbia
...subject to levy.6 Affirmed. * Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(a). 1 She also points to District of Columbia v. Reilly, 1957, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 249 F.2d 524, where we held that the District was not entitled to recover amounts paid for a veteran patient's care before the ......