United States of Amercia v. State

I dissent. For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in the Estate of Lindquist, ante, p. 697 .[ 154 P.2d 879 ], this day filed, I am of the opinion that the decree herein should be affirmed.

The legal issues to be considered in determining this ease are largely similar to those appearing in *720 Estate of Lindquist, ante, page 697 [ 154 P.2d 879 ], the opinion in which was this day filed. There is, however, a substantial factual difference in that here the decedent, Patrick J.-Walker, was a veteran of the Spanish-American War and as such received pension payments' from the federal government from June 27, 1899, to the date of his death on December 11, 1940. Prior to the amendment in 1935 (49 Stats. 607, chap. 510, § 1) of the federal statute under which the United States claims its right to receive the funds in question ( 38 U.S.C. § 450 , subd. (3)), such statute did not specify funds from pension payments as being subject to its operation. However, respondents have conceded that the funds remaining in the hands of the administrator of Walker’s estate for distribution were all derived from pension payments made to him (or to his guardian, appointed October 17, 1938) subsequent to the enactment of such amendment. The residue of those funds is, therefore, impressed with' the reversionary right in favor of their donor, the United States.

As in the Lindquist case, both…