Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71 (1909)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71 (1909)
Goodrich v. Ferris No. 120 Argued March 19, 22, 1909 Decided May 17, 1909 214 U.S. 71
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
The mere fact that a constitutional question is alleged does not suffice to give this Court jurisdiction of a direct appeal from the Circuit Court if such question is unsubstantial and so clearly devoid of merit as to be clearly frivolous. Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U.S. 100.
A probate proceeding by which jurisdiction of the probate court is asserted over a decedent’s estate for the purpose of administration is in the nature of a proceeding in rem, as to which all the world is charged with notice; the law of California conforms to this rule.
Even though the power of the state to prescribe length of notice be not absolute, a notice authorized by the legislature will only be set aside as ineffectual on account of shortness of time in a clear case. Bellingham Bay Co. v. New Whatcom, 172 U.S. 314.
Whether or not a state can arbitrarily determine by statute the length of notice to be given of steps in the administration of estates in the custody of its courts, ten days’ notice for the settlement of the final accounts of an executor and action on final distribution is not so unreasonable as to be wanting in due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment, and so held that the contention that section 1633 and 1634 of the Civil Code of California prescribing such length of notice are unconstitutional as depriving a distributee of his property without due process of law is without merit. Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398, distinguished.
Writ of error to review 145 F. 844 dismissed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71 (1909) in 214 U.S. 71 214 U.S. 74. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2DQBLNQIWQCI8BX.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71 (1909), in 214 U.S. 71, page 214 U.S. 74. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2DQBLNQIWQCI8BX.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71 (1909). cited in 1909, 214 U.S. 71, pp.214 U.S. 74. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2DQBLNQIWQCI8BX.
|