Francis v. Francis
Decision Date | 18 July 1938 |
Citation | 182 So. 833,133 Fla. 495 |
Parties | FRANCIS v. FRANCIS. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Divorce suit by Alice Perkins Francis against John L. Francis. From a part of the final decree settling property rights between the parties, the complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
ELLIS C.J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court Polk County; H. C. Petteway, judge.
Willson & Martin, of Bartow, for appellant.
Ira C Hopper, of Lakeland, for appellee.
The appeal in this case is from that part of a final decree providing as follows:
And the further provision:
'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the fee simple title to the home place of the complainant and defendant, described as follows, to-wit:
'The West 5 1/2 acres of Lot 3 of Geo. H. Watson's Subdivision of NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 in Section 30, Township 28 South, Range 24 East, having a frontage of 170.1 feet along the South boundary line of Lot 3 and situate in the City of Lakeland, County of Polk and State of Florida,
including the bathing and dance pavillion located on Lake Hollingsworth and connected with the shore line of said property, be and the same is hereby decreed vested in complainant and defendant as an estate by the entirety and that upon the entry of this divorce, said property will be vested in complainant and defendant, as tenants in common.
'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the restraining order heretofore entered in this cause on the 11th day of June, 1934, duly recorded in Chancery Order Book 73, page 70, against the defendant John L. Francis be, and the same is hereby dissolved; that the said defendant John L. Francis shall be permitted to take such legal action as he may deem advisable, either by a partition or otherwise to protect and secure his rights in said property in accordance with this decree, but that he shall not personally attempt to take possession of any of said property except the said bathing pavillion except and unless such possession is acquired in some proper legal proceeding or by a further order of this Court.'
The decree was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tenny v. Tenny
... ... 713; ... Meloche v. Meloche, 101 Fla. 659, 133 So. 339, 140 ... So. 319; Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796, ... 82 A.L.R. 537; Francis v. Francis, 133 Fla. 495, 182 ... The case of ... Fritz v. Fernandez, 45 Fla. 318, 34 So. 315, 319, ... was a suit in equity on the part of ... ...
-
Burns v. Burns, 4966
...82 A.L.R. 537.8 Now Section 65.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.9 Dupree v. Dupree, 1945, 156 Fla. 455, 23 So.2d 554.10 Francis v. Francis, 1938, 133 Fla. 495, 182 So. 833, 834.11 Engebretsen v. Engebretsen, 1942, 151 Fla. 372, 11 So.2d ...
-
McFarland v. McFarland, 2279
...of law is that it was intended as a gift to the wife, which will be upheld until overcome by conclusive evidence. Francis v. Francis, 133 Fla. 495, 182 So. 833; Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727; Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So.2d In Kollar v. Kollar, supra, the Supreme Cou......
-
Lauderdale v. Lauderdale
...is that it was intended as a gift to the wife which will be recognized and upheld until overcome by conclusive evidence. Francis v. Francis, 133 Fla. 495, 182 So. 833. This court is also committed to the doctrine that when the wife contributes money or labor over a period of years to the ac......