NEESE, ADMINISTRATOR,
v.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court considered whether an administrator of a deceased widow's estate, who is also an heir, has the right to elect dower in the husband's estate after the widow's death, and whether dower should be computed on the gross or net value of property subject to liens.
The court must first determine the right of the administrator, as such and as an heir of the widow's estate, to a judgment for dower against the husband's estate.
A husband and wife died intestate in an automobile accident. The wife's administrator, within the statutory period, filed an election to take dower in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals without reaching the constitutional challenge to that court’s jurisdiction to review the denial by the trial court of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive. Even assuming such appellate power to exist under the Seventh Amendment, we find that the Court of Appeals was not justified, on this record, in regarding the denial of a new trial, upon a remittitur of part of the verdict, as an abuse of discretion. For apart from that question, as we view the evidence we think that the action of the trial court was not without support in the record, and accordingly that its action should not have been disturbed by the Court of Appeals. We need not consider respondent’s contention that only the jurisdictional question was presented by the petition for certiorari, for in reversing on the above ground we follow the traditional practice of this Court of refusing to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not they have been properly raised before us by the parties. See Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331, 338; Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129, 132, 136, 142.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (60 total)
-
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998)…s. But we do not consider it appropriate to resolve this difficult issue in the present ease, for we have concluded that even assuming, arguendo, the existence of power to hear the claim, the District Court [did not err]”); Neese v. Southern R. Co., 350 U. S. 77 (1955) (per [*123] curiam) (“We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals without reaching the constitutional challenge to that court’s jurisdiction .... Even assuming such appellate power to exist..., [the Court of Appeals erred]”); see also Ell…1 / 2
-
Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1961)…s are replete with instances wherein the Court decided issues which were never even mentioned in the petition for certiorari. See, e. g., Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454; Mackey v. Mendoza-Martinez, 362 [*120] U. S. 384; Neese v. Southern R. Co., 350 U. S. 77; Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129; Marshall v. Pletz, 317 U. S. 383; Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64. One of the policy considerations which has always led the Court to forsake the general rules of waiver is the admoni…
-
Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1963)…ot to pass on questions of constitutionality . . . unless such adjudication is unavoidable,” Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105; see also Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129; Neese v. Southern R. Co., 350 U. S. 77; Mackey v. Mendoza-Martinez, 362 U. S. 384, we have concluded that there is a threshold issue of statutory interpretation in the case, the existence of which obviates.decision here as to whether §212 (a)(4) is constitutional. as applied to responden…
Previewing 3 of 60 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331 (U.S. 1955)
- Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1946)