Fleming v. Fleming
Decision Date | 18 February 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 175,175 |
Citation | 68 L.Ed. 547,44 S.Ct. 246,264 U.S. 29 |
Parties | FLEMING et al. v. FLEMING |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. B. I. Salinger, of Carroll, Iowa, and Albert B. Cummins and Clinton L. Nourse, both of Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. J. M. Parsons and Guy A. Miller, both of Des Moines, Iowa, for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Iowa. The suit was begun in Polk county district court by Anna B. Fleming, widow of Charles Fleming, against three brothers of her husband, one of whom had become his administrator, to secure her dower rights under the state statute in the share of her husband in the property of a partnership of the four brothers in the business of soliciting and placing life insurance. The defendants' claim was that Charles lost all interest in the partnership upon his death, that by virtue of three contracts the property passed to the survivors, and the partnership of the three continued in possession and title free from any claim by heirs, next of kin, or the widow of Charles. The Supreme Court of Iowa held that these contracts constituted a contract by each partner to make a will to his survivors, were testamentary in character, and were avoided by section 3376 of the Code of Iowa, providing that as between husband and wife the survivor's share cannot be affected by any will of the spouse without previous consent of the survivor.
It is assigned for error that in this ruling the Supreme Court of the state reversed its former rulings, under which such a contract of partnership had been held to be valid, and not avoided by section 3376 or any other section of the Code, that on the faith of these rulings the partnership contracts herein had been entered into, and that the new construction of the statute was an impairment of the contracts of partnership in violation of article 1, § 10, of the federal Constitution. This objection was made in the Supreme Court of the state on the application for a second rehearing, and the court held in its opinion that the point was not well taken, because no prior decisions had in fact been overruled. This is a sufficient consideration of the point by the state Supreme Court before its judgment to justify an assignment of error raising the federal question if in fact and in law it be one.
In Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, 263 U. S. 444, 44 Sup. Ct. 197, 68 L. Ed. ——, decided January 7,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Greer
... ... 382; ... 12 C.J. 990; 6 R. C. L. 332; Ross v. State of ... Oregon, 227 U.S. 150, 33 S.Ct. 220, 57 L.Ed. 458, Ann ... Cas. 1914C, 224; Fleming v. [88 Fla. 266] ... Fleming, 264 U.S. 29, 44 S.Ct. 246, 68 L.Ed. 547 ... See, also, Milwaukee Electric Ry. & Light Co. v. State of ... ...
-
Parker v. Port Huron Hosp.
...had never been, and the reconsidered declaration as law from the beginning. Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, supra; Fleming v. Fleming, supra [264 U.S. 29, 44 S.Ct. 246, 68 L.Ed. 547]; Central Land Co. of West Virginia v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103, 112, 16 S.Ct. 80, 40 L.Ed. 91; see, however, Montana......
-
United States v. Standard Oil Company of California
...upon by persons acquiring property, so that its repudiation would amount to a denial of due process. See Fleming v. Fleming, 264 U.S. 29, at page 31, 44 S.Ct. 246, 247, 68 L.Ed. 547. The principle should not be extended to executive departments, except in the clearest instances of long and ......
-
Brace v. Cnty. of Luzerne
...Clause is not violated when there is a new interpretation of an antecedent statute. Id. at 875 (citing Fleming v. Fleming, 264 U.S. 29, 30–32, 44 S.Ct. 246, 68 L.Ed. 547 (1924)). Thus, “[b]ecause PennDOT's actions interpreted and applied a law that had been in force for over 30 years, it di......