NATHAN HOLMES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE ATLANTIC NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
NATHAN HOLMES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
THE ATLANTIC NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
103 Fla. 1071
Florida Supreme Court (1932)
Caution
Also reported at: 137 So. 711
Cited by 133 cases
Opinion of the Court
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court' that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (78 total)
-
Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)…created to describe a vested interest in property brought into the marriage or acquired during the marriage because of contribution of services or funds over and above normal marital duties. Eakin v. Eakin, 99 So. 2d 854 (Fla.1958); Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796 (1932). This vested interest is not alimony. The “special equity” doctrine was developed to avoid the inequities of the existing statutory provision which denied alimony to an adulterous wife despite her special contribution of services…
-
Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)…stances where their use is appropriate and justified. [*952] Special Equity The term “special equity” was judicially created to avoid the harshness of the statutory rule that absolutely prohibited alimony for an adulterous wife. See Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796 (1932). In its true sense, a “special equity” is a vested interest which a spouse acquires because of contribution of funds, property, or services made over and above the performance of normal marital duties. Eakin v. Eakin, 99 So. 2d 8…
-
Banfield v. Addison S. Addington and Daisy T. Addington, 104 Fla. 661 (Fla. 1932)…her own disposal, and for which she is entitled to sue and recover the same, as though she were a single woman. See Section 5871 C. G. L., 3952 R. G. S. This new right of married women has been recognized by this Court in the case of Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 Sou. Rep. 796, recently decided, where the Court upheld a married woman’s right to recover certain rights in her husband’s property, which had accrued to her by the investment of her separate earnings in the business owned and operated by him.…
Previewing 3 of 78 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence