Ringling v. Ringling
Decision Date | 01 May 1935 |
Citation | 119 Fla. 210,161 So. 406 |
Parties | RINGLING v. RINGLING. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 4, 1935.
Action by John Ringling against Emily Ringling. From orders denying defendant's motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and denying motion to strike certain paragraph of the bill of complaint, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
See also. 158 So. 125. Appeal from Circuit Court Sarasota County; Paul C. albritton, judge.
Loftin, Stokes & Calkins, of Miami, for appellant.
Henry L. Williford and James E. Kirk, both of Sarasota, for appellee.
The appeal here is from an order denying motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and from an order denying motion to strike paragraph IV of the bill of complaint in a suit brought by appellee against appellant for divorce. The motion to dismiss was on three grounds, which were as follows:
Motion to dismiss under the 1931 Chancery Practice Act (Laws 1931, c. 14658) takes the place of, and is considered in the light of, a demurrer.
There was also a motion to strike portions of the bill of complaint which was denied. The motion to strike was on the following grounds:
'All of the matters and things alleged in Paragraph IV as constituting extreme cruelty and the habitual indulgence in a violent and ungovernable temper by the defendant towards the plaintiff, which are alleged to have occurred prior to September 1, 1933, the date on which, as is alleged in said bill of complaint, the plaintiff dismissed his first bill for divorce filed on July 26, 1933, and resumed his marital relations with the defendant, on the following grounds:
'1. It affirmatively appears from the said bill of complaint that the plaintiff condoned the alleged acts and conduct on the part of the defendant;
We feel that it could serve no useful purpose to quote here the allegations of paragraph IV of the bill of complaint. It is sufficient to say that on authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases of Ray v. Ray, 63 Fla. 558, 57 So. 609, Erdmans v. Erdmans, 90 Fla. 858, 107 So. 188, and Kellogg v. Kellogg, 93 Fla. 261, 111 So. 637, the allegations of the bill of complaint are sufficient to charge extreme cruelty and habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper. See, also, Gill v. Gill, 107 Fla. 588, 145 So. 758.
The question as to whether or not the alleged and admitted condonation occurring subsequent to the filing of a bill of divorce by the complainant which had been dismissed at the behest of complainant upon reconcillation being reached on September 1, 1933, precludes the complainant from the right to file this bill of complaint which was filed on March 3, 1934, and therein alleging as ground for divorce the same misconduct which was alleged in a prior bill of complaint, together with charges of subsequent similar conduct, has been determined adversely to appellant's contention by this court in the case of Williams v Williams, 23 Fla. 324, 2 So. 768, 772, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Masilotti v. Masilotti
... ... Phillips, 146 Fla. 311, 1 So.2d 186, 187; Crews v ... Crews, 130 Fla. 499, 178 So. 139; Ringling v ... Ringling, 119 Fla. 210, 161 So. 406; Fekany v ... Fekany, 118 Fla. 698, 160 So. 192, and other Florida ... decisions ... The rule ... ...
-
Kollar v. Kollar
...is continued a new cause for divorce will arise. See 27 C.J.S., Divorce, pp. 617, 618, § 62(2); 17 Am.Jur. p. 259, Sec. 213; Ringling v. Ringling, supra; North v. supra. We find ample evidence in the record to sustain that portion of the final decree dismissing plaintiff's bill of complaint......
-
Phillips v. Phillips
...travel about over the Country. It was while he was away on this business that he filed the divorce suit in Florida. In Ringling v. Ringling, 119 Fla. 210, 161 So. 406, held: 'Condonation of wife's misconduct occurring subsequent to filing of bill of divorce by husband which had been dismiss......
-
North v. Ringling
...Ringling v. North, 254 A.D. 664, 4 N.Y.S.2d 574. Appellant's theory of condonation was also rejected by this court in Ringling v. Ringling, 119 Fla. 210, 161 So. 406, wherein we held that a plaintiff in a second bill for was not precluded from raising grounds alleged in a prior bill togethe......