Tully v. Tully
| Citation | 159 Mass. 91,34 N.E. 79 |
| Parties | TULLY v. TULLY. |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1893 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
J.J. & W.A. Hogan, for appellant.
A.D. Pratt and E.B. Quinn, for respondent.
The only question is whether, assuming all else in favor of the petitioner, her petition should be dismissed for the reason that the respondent's only means for complying with the order of the court are from money which he has received, or may hereafter receive, for a pension granted by the general government. It appears that on or about May 1, 1890, he received about $2,800 in a gross sum, all of which he expended or gave away within less than 12 months, except $250, which he had remaining in his own personal custody and control. It has been held that pension money, after being actually received by the pensioner, is not entitled to exemption from legal process. Kellogg v. Waite, 12 Allen, 529; Spelman v. Aldrich, 126 Mass. 113. In this case the proceedings are not directed to the seizure of any specific money, and no question is before us as to the manner in which the order of the court can or should be enforced. The order of the court was for the payment of $25 on a certain date, and $18 on the 1st day of every month thereafter. Such order might properly be passed under Pub.St. c. 147, § 33, although the only means of the respondent were derived from his pension. Pension money is designed in part to enable the pensioner to support his wife and family, and the statute of the United States (Rev.St. § 4747) should not be strained to enable him to avoid this duty. Decree affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schooley v. Schooley
...Blankenship, 19 Kan. 159;Daniels v. Morris, 54 Iowa, 371, 6 N. W. 532, distinguishing the Byers Case, 21 Iowa, 268. (d) In Tully v. Tully, 159 Mass. 91, 34 N. E. 79, pension money was subject to an alimony judgment, though the federal exemption statute was invoked. Why, with reference to ex......
-
Ridgway v. Ridgway
...or the support of wife or children is in issue. See Schlaefer v. Schlaefer, 71 App.D.C. 350, 112 F.2d 177 (1940); Tully v. Tully, 159 Mass. 91, 34 N.E. 79 (1893); Hodson v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, 243 App.Div. 480, 278 N.Y.S. 16 (1935); In re Guardianship of Bagnall, 238......
-
In re Bagnall's Guardianship
... ... under sections 4747, 454, and 454a, supra. A large majority ... has held in the affirmative ... In Tully v ... Tully, May 17, 1893, 159 Mass. 91, 34 N.E. 79, Bridget Tully ... sued Luke Tully for separate maintenance and it was decreed ... that her ... ...
-
Schooley v. Schooley
...19 Kan. 159; Daniels v. Morris, 54 Iowa 369, 371, 6 N.W. 532 (distinguishing Byers v. Byers, 21 Iowa 268). d. In Tully v. Tully, 159 Mass. 91 (34 N.E. 79), money was subjected to an alimony judgment, though the Federal exemption statute was invoked. Why, with reference to exemptions, pensio......