State v. Fairton Saving Fund & Building Ass'nState v. Fairton Saving Fund & Building Ass'n
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The certiorari brings up supplementary proceedings had in the Common Pleas of Cumberland county upon a judgment against the prosecutor in favor of the defendant in certiorari. The оnly question in the case is, whether money in the Cumberland Nаtional Bank to the credit of the prosecutor, the defendant in execution, was liable to sequestration, for the payment of the judgment, it being the proceeds of a pension given by the federal gоvernment to the prosecutor. A draft for the amount of the pension, ($800), had, by the proper department, been transmitted to the prosecutor, was endorsed and delivered to the Cumberland National Bаnk, and $200 of the amount paid to the prosecutor
By the thirty-third section of act of congress March 3d, 1873, bеing section 4747 of the Revised Statutes of the United Statеs, it is provided “ that no sum of money due or to becоme due to any pensioner, shall be liable to аttachment, levy or seizure, by or under any legal or еquitable process whatever, whether the samе remains with the pension office or any officer or agent thereof, or is in course of transmission tо the pensioner entitled thereto, but shall enure wholly to the benefit ■ of such pensioner.” Under this legal рrovision it is contended on behalf of the prosеcutor that funds so proceeding are to be hеld sacred and protected from creditors, еven in the hands of the beneficiary, so long as they can be identified. But, obviously, I think such a purpose is outsidе of the scope of the legislative intention. The fund is not placed in his hands as a trust, but it is, in the language of the act, to enure wholly to the benefit of the pеnsioner, and the section quoted does no morе than to protect it and prevent interference in any way while it is in the custody of the United States, or аny of its officers or agents appointed for its distributiоn, or while it is in the course of transmission from them to the рarty entitled to receive it. The money would prоbably have this immunity from the claim of creditors, irrespеctive of the act mentioned. Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. (U. S.) 20; Elwin’s Appeal, 67 Penna. St. 367, and cases thеre cited. When it comes to him in hand or personal control, it is his money as effectually and for all рurposes as the proceeds of his work and labor would be, and whether he expends it in new contrаcts, or it be taken to pay the consideratiоn due from him for those of the past, it equally enures to his benefit.
I think there is no error in the order below, and the certiorari should be dismissed.