United States v. State

The United States of America has appealed from “the Decree of Settlement of Final Account and of Final Distribution” in the estate of Carl A. Lindquist, deceased, “distributing the residue of the estate of the decedent of the Probate Code of the State of California, and denying to the State of California under the provisions of Section 1027 *700 the claim of the United States of America for distribution of said residue under the provisions of Section 450 of Title 38 of the United States Code.” A hearing was granted by this court, after decision by the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, for the purpose of giving further study to the problems presented and in order to provide a decisive precedent for guidance in the settling of similar controversies which it has been suggested would otherwise arise in the future. After such study we have concluded that the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, prepared by Mr. Justice Ward, correctly treats and disposes of the issues involved, and it is therefore, with further discussion concerning one phase of the matter which was the subject of an added memorandum of authorities before us, adopted as and for the…

I dissent. In my opinion the provision in the federal statute ( 38 U.S.C. § 450 ) providing for the escheat to the United States of funds belonging to the estate of a deceased veteran is in contravention of the Tenth Amend- ' ment to the Constitution of the United States and is therefore invalid. Under this amendment all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. By this reservation the rights of sovereignty are guaranteed to the states by the Constitution. No act of Congress *713 can subtract an attribute of sovereignty from a state. Citation of authority is not necessary to demonstrate that probate jurisdiction over the property of a resident situated within a state is the exercise of. thé right of a sovereign.

There are many authorities to the effect that the. state has the sole and exclusive power over the disposition of property under its jurisdiction. (United States v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315 [ 24 L.Ed. 192 ]; Sunderland v. United States, 266 U.S. 226 [ 45 S.Ct. 64 , 69 L.Ed. 259 ]; United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625 [ 16 S.Ct. 1073 , .41 L.Ed..287];. Beaver v. Short, 300 F. 113 .) In the case of Hamilton v. Brown, 161…