U.S. Supreme Court HINES v. STEIN, 298 U.S. 94 (1936)

[Page 298 U.S. 94, 98]

seemly, perhaps extremely unfortunate. And in the absence of compelling language, we cannot conclude that there was intention to create a situation where this probably would occur.

During many years, Congress has recognized the propriety, if not the necessity, of intrusting the custody and management of funds belonging to incompetent pensioners to fiduciaries appointed by state courts, without seeking to limit judicial power in respect of them. To the contrary, it has directed that whenever any guardian, curator, or conservator fails properly to execute his trust, etc., the Administrator may 'appear in the court which has appointed ... and make proper presentation of such matters.' Chapter 723, 2, 44 Stat. 792, amended by chapter 510, 1, 49 Stat. 607, 38 U.S.C.A. 450. Authority of the state courts over guardians for incompetents is thus definitely recognized. The Administrator is expressly empowered to suspend further payments if the guardian is found to be acting improperly; so much is possible without conflict.

Nothing brought to our attention would justify the view that Congress intended to deprive state courts of their usual authority over fiduciaries, or to sanction the promulgation of rules to that end by executive officers or bureaus.

The broad purpose of regulations in respect of fees of those concerned with pension matters is to protect the United States and beneficiaries against extortion, imposition, or fraud. Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170, 173, 40 S.Ct. 474. Dangers of this character are not to be expected in connection with the orderly exercise of authority by state courts over appointees properly intrusted with pension funds. The purpose in view is for consideration when the true meaning of statute or rule is sought.

The challenged decree must be affirmed. Footnotes

[Footnote *] Rehearing denied 298 U.S. 692, 56 S.Ct. 945, 80 L.Ed. --.[ Hines v. Stein (1936) ]