Hathorn v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 12 December 1901
• Citation: 51 A. 236,96 Me. 33
• Parties: HATHORN v. ROBINSON et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

51 A. 236

96 Me. 33

HATHORN

v. ROBINSON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 12, 1901.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Somerset county.

Action by Eastman Hathorn against John Robinson and Sylvester J. Walton, trustee. Judgment for plaintiff, and the trustee excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, SAVAGE, FOGLER, and PEABODY, JJ.

H. D. Eaton, for plaintiff.

S. J. & L. L. Walton, for trustee.

WISWELL, C. J. The plaintiff, a judgment creditor of the defendant, had summoned the latter before a disclosure commissioner. Upon his examination it appeared that the defendant then had in his immediate possession a sum of money, considerably more than the amount of the execution. But it was claimed by the debtor that this money could not be seized or taken in any way and applied to the payment of the execution, because it had been received by him as a beneficiary under an insurance policy issued by a fraternal beneficiary organization known as the United Order of the Golden Cross of the World, authorized to do business in this state under chapter 320, Pub. Laws 1897, and that money so received was exempt from attachment or seizure upon execution by reason of the provisions of that chapter.

A question arising between the parties and the counsel as to the validity of this contention, it was agreed by them that $500 of the sum in the debtor's possession should be deposited in the hands of his attorney, and that suit should be commenced by the plaintiff upon his judgment, this money attached by trustee process, and the question submitted to judicial determination in such suit. Suit was accordingly commenced by trustee process, and upon the disclosure of the trustee the court at nisi prius held that the trustee was chargeable. The case is before us upon an exception to this ruling.

The decision of the case depends upon the construction of section 14, c. 320, Pub. Laws 1897, which is as follows: "The money or other benefit, charity, relief, or aid to be paid, provided or rendered by any corporation, association or society authorized to do business under this act, and as herein provided, shall not be liable to attachment by trustee or other process, and shall not be seized, taken or appropriated, or applied by any legal or equitable process, nor by operation of law, to pay any debt or liability of a certificate holder, or any beneficiary thereof."

The question is whether under this statute money received by a beneficiary from such an organization continues to be exempt from attachment or seizure upon execution after it has come into his possession. It is evident that literally the statute does not go to this extent. It refers to the money or other benefit "to be paid." But it is argued that, if the effect of this statute is only to exempt such money before it is received by the beneficiary, the exemption would be of such slight value to him that something more must have...