GEORGE A. GREDLER, APPELLANT,
v.
SARAH J. GREDLER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a divorce complaint, holding that the complainant failed to allege or prove the statutory two-year residency requirement for divorce.
No, the complainant failed to allege and prove the two-year prior residence in Florida, which is a statutory prerequisite for granting a divorce.
“The complainant had wholly failed to allege in his bill, or to prove, that he had resided in this State for two years prior to the exhibition of his bill.”
Establishes the core factual and legal deficiency in the appellant's case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a bill in equity for divorce, to which the appellee responded by denying the material allegations. After extensive testimony was t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*373] Taylob, J.:
George A. Gredler, the appellant, on September '25th, 1889, sued the appellee, Sarah J. Gredler, by bill in equity, in the Circuit Court of Franklin county, for divorce. The defendant answered denying all the material allegations of the bill. ' Replication was filed, the cause was referred to a master to take and report the testimony; a voluminous amount of testimony was taken and reported to the court; a final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs was had, and this resulted in a decree dismissing the complainant’s bill; and from this decree the complainant appeals.
The complainant had wholly failed to allege in his bill, or to prove, that he had resided in this State for two years prior to the exhibition of his bill. In Phelan vs. Phelan, 12 Fla. 449, it was held, and we. think with entire correctness, that the fact of the applicant’s prior residence for two years in this State was necessary both to be alleged in the bill, and established by proof, before the courts were authorized to grant a divorce under our statute. Miller vs. Miller, 33 Fla. 453. In the absence of such allegation, and proof to .sustain it, the court below very properly dismissed the *ül at the final hearing.
The decree appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1909)…the prerequisite two years residence in this State of the complainant to authorize the complainant to maintain this suit. Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858, 43 South. Rep. 923; Donnelly v. Donnelly, 39 Fla. 229, 22 South. Rep. 648; Gredler v. Gredler, 36 Fla. 372, 18 South. Rep. 762. The extreme cruelty that constitutes the statutory ground for divorce is such conduct by the husband or wife towards the other consort as will endanger his or her life, limb or health, or as will cause a reasonable apprehension…
-
Frederic G. Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196 (Fla. 1929)…must be alleged and established by proof. This is not an instance in which facts going to the jurisdiction, may be effectually ad [*1216] mitted by the parties. Phelan v. Phelan, 12 Fla. 449; Underwood v. Underwood, 12 Fla. 434; Gredler v. Gredler, 36 Fla. 372, 18 So. R. 762; Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 So. R. 867. This Court has long adhered to the principle that: “The State being a party in interest in all divorce suits, and the public welfare and morals being involved, admissions of the parties t…
-
Wade v. Wade, 93 Fla. 1004 (Fla. 1927)…ust be alleged in the bill and established by proof. This is not an instance in which facts going to the jurisdiction may be effectually admitted by the parties. Phelan v. Phelan, 12 Fla. 449; Underwood v. Underwood, 12 Fla. 434; Gredder v. Gredder, 36 Fla. 372, 18 South. Rep. 762; Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 South. Rep. 867. The State being a party in interest in all divorce suits, and the public welfare and morals being involved, admissions of the parties therein, even by way of decree pro confesso,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Phelan v. Phelan, 12 Fla. 449 (Fla. 1868)
- Miller v. Miller, 33 Fla. 453 (Fla. 1894)