Tully v. Tully

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Tully v. Tully

34 N.E. 79, 159 Mass. 91, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 90

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 17, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 34 N.E. 79 (Tully v. Tully) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tully v. Tully, 34 N.E. 79, 159 Mass. 91, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 90 (Mass. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Allen, J.

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 twelve 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 [93]*93by 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 twenty-five dollars on a certain date, and eighteen dollars on the first day of every month thereafter. Such order might properly be passed under Pub. Sts. 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. Sts. § 4747, should not be strained to enable him to avoid this duty. Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allen, J.

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 twelve 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 [93]*93by 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 twenty-five dollars on a certain date, and eighteen dollars on the first day of every month thereafter. Such order might properly be passed under Pub. Sts. 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. Sts. § 4747, should not be strained to enable him to avoid this duty. Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.E. 79, 159 Mass. 91, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tully-v-tully-mass-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack