Smelser v. Southern Railway Company

3 Citing cases

  1. Meadors v. Smelser

    244 F.2d 719 (6th Cir. 1957)

    The above cause coming on to be heard upon the transcript of record, the brief of the parties and the arguments of counsel in open court, and the court being duly advised, Now therefore, It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the order denying appellant's motion to reopen the judgment in the case of Walker M. Smelzer, Administrator of the Estate of William C. Smelzer, Jr., Deceased, in the district court, be and is hereby affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Robert L. Taylor, 148 F. Supp. 891.

  2. Lawrence v. White

    362 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn. 1962)   Cited 1 times

    The Act expressly reserves the right of action to the personal representative of deceased, and gives said personal representative the right to compromise any claim, without approval of any Court. In support of these general statements see: 45 U.S.C.A. sec. 51 et seq.; American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Birch, 224 U.S. 547, 32 S.Ct. 603, 56 L.Ed. 879; Thompson v. Wabash R. Co., 8 Cir., 184 F. 554; In re: Butler, D.C., 20 F. Supp. 995; Smelser v. Southern Railway Co., D.C., 148 F. Supp. 891; Stewart v. Southern Railway Co., 315 U.S. 283, 62 S.Ct. 616, 86 L.Ed. 849; Gulf C. S.F.R. v. McGinnis, 228 U.S. 173, 33 S.Ct. 426, 57 L.Ed. 785, Michigan Central R. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 33 S.Ct. 192, 57 L.Ed. 417; American R. of Porto Ricov. Didricksen, 227 U.S. 145, 33 S.Ct. 224, 57 L.Ed. 456; Nashville C. St. L.R. v. Anderson, 134 Tenn. 666, 185 S.W. 677, L.R.A. 1918C, 1115; Oakley v. Nashville C St. L.R., 196 Tenn. 395, 268 S.W.2d 110. In re: Smith, supra was decided by this Court in 1950.

  3. Presley v. Upper Mississippi Towing Corp.

    141 So. 2d 411 (La. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 12 times

    Moffett v. Baltimore O. R. Co., 4 Cir., 220 F. 39; 17 C.J. 1212, verbo Death § 60; 25 C.J.S. verbo Death § 33, p. 1108; Smelser v. Southern Ry. Co., D.C., 148 F. Supp. 891. We believe the connotation and scope of the language employed in the numerous Federal decisions, namely, "deprivation of the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits" or words of similar import and meaning to be vastly different from the phrase "monetary benefits which would have come to her".