Yandell v. Yandell
| Decision Date | 17 February 1948 |
| Citation | 33 So.2d 869,160 Fla. 164 |
| Parties | YANDELL v. YANDELL. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
J. Lewis Hall of Tallahassee, and Murrell, Fleming & Flowers, of Miami, for petitioner.
Cushman & Woodard, of Miami, for respondent.
This cause comes on before this Court on a petition for certiorari under Rule 34 to review an interlocutory decree in equity.
Since the petition in certiorari is to advise the Court and in order that injustice not go without relief, the contents of the petition are very important and, further, it is important that the allegations in the petition be supported by page references to the record. The petitioner should present in his petition such of the proceedings as he desires to have reviewed. At times material exhibits may appropriately be attached to the petition, or else they should be plead according to their tenor and effect or, if short in length, copied into the petition, with proper page references.
A statement of the error forming the ground of complaint is required to be stated in the petition according to the essential rules of pleading, for the ascertainment of the precise point in controversy. As distinguished from mere allegations, the petition for certiorari must disclose or show merit and in making out a statement of the case there must be such fullness and certainty in the averments as will show what the case really was, that some material error or injustice has been done the petitioner. It must point out some injury or injustice that has been done and of what such injury or injustice consists.
The only pertinent portions of the record involved in these proceedings are: (1) The award of alimony, under date of January 20, 1947; (2) the testimony before the Chancellor, on August 21, 1947; (3) the order of commitment, of like date. All other matters in the transcript might as well have been omitted, inasmuch as the rule provides that, as to the record to accompany a petition for certiorari, it shall be 'a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings the petitioner seeks to have reviewed or so much thereof as is essential.' (Supreme Court Rules 28 and 34).
It appears that the Chancellor below, on the 21st day of January, 1947, made an order decreeing that the defendant-petitioner pay to the plaintiff-respondent the sum of $75 per week, for the maintenance and support of herself and her two minor children; that on the 21st day of August, 1947...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Faircloth v. Faircloth, W--506
...when the inability arises, as well as the fact that the husband has intentionally brought about his financial incapacity. Yandell v. Yandell, 160 Fla. 164, 33 So.2d 869; Satterfield v. Satterfield, Fla., 39 So.2d We find that the evidence fully supports the contempt commitment entered by th......
-
Faircloth v. Faircloth
...neglect but rather to circumstances beyond his control which intervened since the final decree ordering him to pay. Yandell v. Yandell, 160 Fla. 164, 33 So.2d 869 (Fla.1948); Orr v. Orr, 141 Fla. 112, 192 So. 466 (1939); Naster .v Naster, 151 So.2d 313 (Fla.App.2nd, 1963); cert. disch. 163 ......
-
Santos v. Santos
...be confined to those cases wherein the presence of special circumstances might require it or render it advisable. (Yandell v. Yandell, 160 Fla. 164,39 S. [2d] 554;Rardin v. Rardin, 330 Ill. App. 68,89 N. E. [2d] 67.) It affirmatively appears from the record before us that the trial judge wa......
-
Garo v. Garo
...of contempt order findings in alimony default cases was more definitively explained in a later Supreme Court case, Yandell v. Yandell, 160 Fla. 164, 33 So.2d 869 (1948): 'Upon a rule to show (c)ause for the non-payment of alimony, the burden of proof and of proceeding Rests upon the one who......