Powell v. Powell
| Decision Date | 17 February 1919 |
| Citation | 77 Fla. 181,81 So. 105 |
| Parties | POWELL v. POWELL. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Okaloosa County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.
Suit for divorce by Jesse F. Powell against Susanna Powell. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
The findings of the chancellor on the facts, where the evidence is taken before a special master, should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless such findings are clearly shown to be erroneous.
Where a divorce is sought on the ground of desertion, it should not only be shown that the alleged desertion is willful and obstinate, but it should also be shown that such desertion has continued for the statutory period of one year.
Evidence examined, and found insufficient to sustain allegations of violent and ungovernable temper or extreme cruelty as grounds for divorce.
COUNSEL J. T. Wiggins, of Milton, for appellant.
Appellant brought suit for divorce against appellee in the circuit court of Okaloosa county. The grounds upon which the divorce was sought were (1) willful, obstinate, and continued desertion of defendant by complainant for a period of one year; (2) habitual indulgence by defendant in violent and ungovernable temper; and (3) extreme cruelty by defendant to complainant.
There was service of subpoena upon defendant, and thereafter a decree pro confesso was duly entered against her. The testimony was taken before a master and submitted to the chancellor, whereupon, upon a consideration of same, it was held that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the granting of the relief prayed, and the bill was dismissed at the cost of complainant.
On this appeal the sole question presented is whether there was error in the order denying the relief prayed and dismissing the bill.
The established rule here is that the findings of the chancellor on the facts, where the evidence is taken before a special master, should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless such findings are clearly shown to have been erroneous. Simpson v. First National Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla 539, 77 So. 204; Baggott v. Otis, 65 Fla. 447, 62 So. 362.
With respect to the alleged desertion, the evidence wholly fails. If there had been a willful and obstinate desertion of complainant by defendant, there is no proof that such desertion had been continued for the statutory period at the time the suit was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Donnelly's Estate, in Re
...solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. See Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 So. 501; Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 So. 105; Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93, 82 So. Sandlin v. Hunter Company, 70 Fla. 514, 70 So. 553. It is strongly argued here that Mis......
-
Peacock v. Du Bois
...or solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 So. 501; Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 So. 105; Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93, 82 So. 611; Sandlin v. Hunter Co., 70 Fla. 514, 70 So. 553. Does the testimony show fraud and u......
-
West Yellow Pine Co. v. Sinclair
...disturbed by an appellate court unless such findings are clearly shown to have been erroneous, the decree will be affirmed. Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 So. 105; Simpson v. First Nat'l Bank, 74 Fla. 539, 77 204; Baggott v. Otis, 65 Fla. 447, 62 So. 362. Affirmed. BROWNE, C.J., and TAYL......
-
Reynolds v. Reynolds, B-10
...So.2d 87, and Darden v. Darden, 246 Ala. 525, 21 So.2d 549, and compare Mitchell v. Mitchell, 91 Fla. 427, 107 So. 630, and Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 So. 105. Following the Alabama decree the husband established his residence in Florida, where on March 12, 1958, he filed the suit pr......