¶1The 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 *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.
159 Mass. 91
Tully v. Tully
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided May 17, 1893
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1893-05-17
Petition to the Probate Court, under Pub. Sts. c. 147, § 33, alleging that the petitioner was the wife of Luke Tully; that he failed, without just cause, to furnish suitable support for her, and had wilfully deserted her; and praying that the court would prohibit the husband from imposing any restraint on her personal liberty for such time as the court should direct, or until the further order of the court, and would make such further order as it deemed expedient concerning…
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““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.””
quoted by 1 later decision, including In Re Irish
Relies on Spelman v. Aldrich
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1893-05-17
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1981
3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →