Donald v. Portis

42 Ala. 29
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 42 Ala. 29 (Donald v. Portis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donald v. Portis, 42 Ala. 29 (Ala. 1868).

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

It is understood that the merits of this case have been settled, and that a decision upon the question of reversal or affirmance is only required for the purpose of adjudging the costs of this court. In this condition of the case, the cause is placed in our hands for decision, without argument, brief, or statement of the points arising in the case. We have examined the case without any of the usual helps in our investigation, and conclude, that the only point in the case as presented is, whether the administrator of Mrs. Nancy Enlon was entitled to a distributive share as the representative of the widow of Daniel Enlon, the decedent, from a decree on the settlement of whose estate the appeal is taken. The decision of this question, we understand from the record, depends upon the other question, whether, after the death of a testator’s widow, her administrator can, within twelve months after the probate of the will, dissent, and take a distributive share instead of the testamentary provision. This question we decide in the negative, upon the ground that the right of dissenting from the will of a deceased husband, given to the widow by our statute, is personal and not trans-[31]*31miss'ible to her administrator. — 2 Scribner on Dower, 468, 480; 2 Redfield on Wills, 754; Welsh v. Anderson, 28 Missouri, 293.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re: Estate of John Stephan
194 So. 343 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Hodges v. Hale
97 S.W.2d 454 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1936)
Camardella v. Schwartz
126 A.D. 334 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Rainey v. Ridgway
41 So. 632 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Flynn v. . McDermott
75 N.E. 931 (New York Court of Appeals, 1905)
Crenshaw v. Carpenter
69 Ala. 572 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 Ala. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-v-portis-ala-1868.