Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Harry Clifford Porter

(dissenting) .

The clear purpose of the Act “[t]o safeguard the estates of veterans derived from payments of pension,” etc.,1 is to make these benefit payments available for use in the current maintenance and support of the veteran, without interference by taxes or creditors. Consistent with this principle the courts have held that so long as the payments remain as a bank deposit they are immune from outside absorption;2 but, when they pass into the form of investments in land or buildings (which would indicate they are not currently needed), they lose their immunity. Thus, to my mind, the…