Cobb v. Cobb
| Decision Date | 19 October 1921 |
| Citation | 89 So. 869,82 Fla. 287 |
| Parties | COBB v. COBB. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Irma L. Cobb against James D. Cobb for alimony, and from an interlocutory order therein the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Demurrer to bill will be treated as overruled, where parties by agreement take testimony and submit cause on merits. Where in a chancery cause a demurrer to a bill is interposed but not formally disposed of, and the parties by agreement proceed to take testimony before a special master, and afterwards submit the cause to the chancellor upon its merits, who renders a decree or makes a decretal order therein, the demurrer will be treated as having been overruled.
Nonresident wife may maintain suit against resident husband for maintenance, unconnected with cause of divorce. Under the provisions of section 3197, Rev. Gen. St. Fla. 1920, a married woman, although not a resident of this state, may maintain a suit against her husband, a resident of this state, for maintenance or contribution, unconnected with cause of divorce.
In wife's action for maintenance or contribution temporary alimony and suit money allowable. In a suit by a married woman against her husband for maintenance or contribution under the provisions of section 3197, Rev. Gen. St. Fla 1920, the court has power to require the husband to provide temporary alimony and suit money for his wife.
Chancellor's decree solely on fact questions will not be disturbed, unless clearly shown erroneous. The chancellor's finding on the facts will be accorded the same weight as the verdict of a jury, and a decree solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed, unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous.
Wife suing for maintenance or contribution need not show grounds for divorce. In a suit by a married woman for maintenance and contribution, it is not necessary for the complainant to make such a case as would entitle her to divorce from her husband under the statutory provisions of the state in order to obtain the relief sought.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Okaloosa County; A. G Campbell, judge.
Walter Kehoe, of Pensacola, for appellant.
S. K Gillis, of De Funiak Springs, for appellee.
The appellee, Irma L. Cobb, began suit in the circuit court for Okaloosa county against her husband, James D. Cobb, for alimony unconnected with cause of divorce under section 3197, R. G. S. of 1920; section 1934, Fla. Comp. Laws, 1914.
The defendant interposed a demurrer to the bill which seems not to have been disposed of, and the defendant filed an answer denying that the complainant's living apart from him was through his fault, and denying that he failed to contribute to the maintenance of his wife. Testimony was taken by a special master, and the court on final hearing rendered a decree against the defendant, requiring him to pay to the complainant or her solicitor the sum of $15 as suit money, $50 as temporary counsel fees, half the said sums to be paid on June 1 and the other half on July 1, 1921, and that he pay the sum of $8 per week as temporary alimony during the pendency of the suit, the first payment to be made on Monday the 23d of May and on Monday of each week thereafter. The chancellor also decreed that in the event it should be shown by the testimony of reputable physicians that it is necessary for the complainant to have a change of climate on account of her health that the court will consider the same and make such further order as may be shown to be warranted by the testimony touching the expenses of such a change. From this interlocutory order the defendant appealed. Although the demurrer to the bill was not disposed of by the chancellor in specific terms, yet by stipulation of counsel it was agreed that the special master should take the testimony, and the cause went to a final hearing without objection. The decree of the chancellor in effect overruled the demurrer because he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kiplinger v. Kiplinger
...Donnelly v. Donnelly, 39 Fla. 229, 22 So. 648; Miller v. Miller, 33 Fla. 453, 15 So. 222, 24 L.R.A. 137. In the case of Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 So. 869, was filed in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County by the wife against her husband, claiming alimony, unconnected with the cause of d......
-
Ball v. Papp, 74--98
...Kreedian v. BCK Land, Inc., 145 So.2d 550 (2nd DCA Fla.1962); Stengel v. Biggar, 129 Fla. 627, 176 So. 786 (1937); Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 So. 869 (1921); Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. 97 (1891); 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, §§ 314, 316 We affirm the judgment of the Court below on ......
-
Muller v. Maxcy
...on the pleadings, at the hearing, or at any time thereafter. See Terra Ceia Estates v. Taylor, 68 Fla. 261, 264, 67 So. 169; Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 So. 869. Instead, he waited until the final hearing and then moved, for the first time, for an allowance of an additional two-months per......
-
Ford v. Turner, 2372
...and a decree solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous. Cobb v. Cobb, [1921] 82 Fla. 287, 89 So. 869.'' The defendants finally contend that the chancellor abused his discretion in denying rehearing on motion to reopen the case ......