Jones v. Price

• Decision Date: 26 February 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 6427)
• Citation: 107 W.Va. 55
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Irene Jones et al v. James J. Price, Administrator, etc., et al.

107 W.Va. 55

Irene Jones et al

v.James J. Price, Administrator, etc., et al.

(No. 6427)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted February 19, 1929.

Decided February 26, 1929.

1. Bounties Congress May Surround Payments in Nature of Gratuities With Conditions Deemed Proper.

Congress may surround payments which are in the nature of gratuities with such conditions as it deems proper to impose. (p. 56).

2. Same Administrator of Veteran Cannot Divert to His Creditors Amount of Adjusted Service Credit Payable to His Dependents. (38 USCA §§ 618, 661).

Section 618, Title 38, Mason's U. S. Code, Ann. (1926) provides that no sum payable under that chapter to a veteran, his dependents or his estate "shall be subject to attachment, levy or seizure under any legal or equitable process." Held: The administrator of a veteran may not divert to his creditors the sum payable to his dependents under that chapter. (p. 56).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kanawha County.

Suit by Irene Jones and others against James J. Price, administrator, and others. Decree for defendants and plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

H. D. Rollins, for appellants.

Hatcher, Judge:

This is a suit brought by the widow and children of James S. Jones, deceased, against his administrator. Its purpose is to recover from the administrator the proceeds of a U. S. Adjusted Service Certificate in favor of the deceased. The administrator seeks to pay the debts of the estate out of the proceeds. The circuit court found in favor of the administrator.

In the first instance, this certificate is not properly a part of the decedent's estate and the administrator was not entitled to collect it. Under the express provisions of section 661 of title 38 Mason's U. S. Code, Ann., the amount of the adjusted service credit in such case, shall be paid, not to the veteran's estate, but to his dependents, the widow being preferred.

In the second place the sum payable to the dependents is expressly exempted by section 618 of same title from "attachment, levy or seizure under any legal or equitable process." It is settled law, that as payments such as this are mere bounties which the government may grant or withhold at pleasure, Congress may surround these gratuities with such conditions as it deems proper to impose. Hissem v. Johnson, 27 W. Va. 644, 652; Kellog v. Waite Tr., 94 Mass. (12 Allen), 529, 530; U. 8. v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343, 357. In discussing an exempting phrase similar to the one above, the court said in Hissem v. Johnson, supra: "The exemption here declared is absolute and unqualified." Congress has manifestly intended to so surround this...