Raborn v. Raborn
| Decision Date | 14 January 1921 |
| Citation | 81 Fla. 51,87 So. 50 |
| Parties | RABORN v. RABORN. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by John D. Raborn against Anna Raborn for divorce. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Syllabus by the Court
On appeal, divorce decree may be partly affirmed and partly reversed to allow for wife's support. Where there is sufficient evidence to sustain a decree of divorce and awarding the custody of minor children, but the provision of the decree denying alimony to the wife appears to be inequitable, the decree may, on appeal, be affirmed in part and reversed in part, so as to allow appropriate provision to be made by the lower court for the support of the wife, as the circumstances may warrant.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walton County; Daniel A. Simmons, judge.
S. K. Gillis, of De Funiak Springs, for appellant.
Walter Kehoe, of Pensacola, for appellee.
Appellee brought a bill for divorce against appellant alleging three statutory grounds, viz. desertion, extreme cruelty, and habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper. The defendant wife asked for alimony and by answer denied the charges against her. Voluminous testimony was taken. The chancellor granted a divorce to the husband and awarded four of the children to him, decreeing also an allowance of $30 per month to the wife for the support of the other two children committed to her care and custody. Alimony was denied. The defendant wife appealed, and contends here that the decree is erroneous in granting the divorce on the testimony and in refusing alimony.
There is substantial evidence warranting a decree of divorce. Upon the authority of Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 So. 87, the decree granting the divorce is affirmed, and the decree as to an allowance to the appellant for the support of two children committed to her care is also affirmed. But the decree denying alimony is reversed and the matter of appropriate provision for the support of the appellant is reserved to the lower court for proper action, should the circumstances of the case warrant it.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
... ... Carlton v. Carlton, 83 So. 87, 78 Fla. 253, also ... same case in 100 So. 745, 87 Fla. 460, and Raborn v ... Raborn, 87 So. 50, 81 Fla. 51, warrant a departure from ... the general rule. Such special equities do not appear in the ... instant case ... ...
-
Gill v. Gill
...industry or from her own property. Erdmans v. Erdmans, 90 Fla. 858, 107 So. 188; Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 So. 87; Raborn v. Raborn, 81 Fla. 51, 87 So. 50; v. Baker, 94 Fla. 1001, 114 So. 661. In the case at bar, the husband was not wholly free from fault. A careful reading of the......
- Troeger v. Troeger