HENRY MICKENS, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY RODRIGUEZ MICKENS, 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.
Henry Mickels appealed a divorce denial in which the trial court rejected his claim that his wife Mary deserted him. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding the evidence did not clearly establish willful desertion since the wife's departure appeared forced by her husband's harsh treatment.
The court affirmed the denial of divorce, holding that the evidence did not clearly establish desertion. A wife who leaves due to her husband's harsh treatment and cruelty cannot be held guilty of desertion, particularly when she reasonably refused to return despite his offer of forgiveness for brutal conduct.
“It is true that the woman left the house of her husband in Key West and went to live in Miami. It is also true that she has manifested no disposition to return, but it does not appear that she was wholly at fault in leaving.”
Establishes the factual basis of separation while noting the wife was not wholly at fault
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Mickels sued for divorce on grounds of desertion. Mary left their home in Key West and moved to Miami, manifesting no intent to return. However,…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cruelty cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, J.
Henry Mickens brought suit for divorce in the Circuit Court for Monroe County against Mary Rodriguez Mickens, his wife, upon the grounds of. desertion.
The Chancellor on final hearing denied the relief prayed for and dismissed the bill. The complainant appealed.
The only question presented for our consideration is whether the evidence which was taken before a Special Master and by him reported to the court clearly shows that the Chancellor’s conclusions were erroneous. See Simpson v. First National Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539, 77 South. Rep. 204.
We have carefully examined the record and read with much interest the able briefs for the respective parties in this cause, but we are unable to say that the Chancellor’s decision upon the facts appears to have been clearly erroneous. It is true that the woman left the house of her husband in Key West and went to live in Miami. It is also true that she has rr anifested no disposition to return, but it does not appear that she was wholly at fault in leaving. In fact her departure seems to have been in a way forced upon her. At least there is evidence to support such a view. If during the period of her absence from Key West there was any time when it could be clearly and definitely said that her desertion of the complainant had begun, we are unable to fix the date from the evidence. If she left her husband because of his harsh treatment of her, believing that her life or health was endangered by his harshness and cruelty, towards her, we cannot say that she should have immediately returned because he magnanimously offered to forgive her his brutal conduct and take her back to his home; nor do we think it would be equitable to hold her guilty of desertion from the first if she refused to accept the amende honorable.
The decree of the Chancellor is affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and , West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
Travis v. Sim Travis, 81 Fla. 309 (Fla. 1921)…. Rogers, Jr., Trustee, 78 Fla. 98, 82 South. Rep. 611; Boyd v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 61, 82 South. Rep. 758; Brickell v. Town of Ft. Lauderdale, 75 Fla. 622, 78 South. Rep. 681; Manasse v. Dutton Bank, 75 Fla. 327, 78 South. Rep. 424; Mickens v. Mickens, 75 Fla. 391, 78 South. Rep. 287; Smith v. O’Brien, 75 Fla. 252, 78 South. Rep. 13; Simpson, Trustee, v. First National Bank, 75 Fla. 539, 77 South. Rep. 204; Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 South. Rep. 216; Guerra v. Guiterrez, 66 Fla. 570, 64 South…
-
Gordon v. State, 104 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1958)…matter by any member of the grand jury or by the transcript of the initial recorded proceedings of the grand jury. State ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 123 Fla. 785, 167 So. 687; Tindall v. State, 99 Fla. 1132, 128 So. 494; Settles v. State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 So. 287. Actually the court reporter who testified for the State certified in his certificate to the transcript of the grand jury testimony the subject of the grand jury investigation. Suffice it to say that permitting the State to offer in evidence a colla…
-
Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318 (Fla. 1927)…ns of this Court for many years before the statute was enacted. Butler v. State, decided at the January Term, 1927, of this Court; Ellis v. State, 86 Fla. 56, 97 So. 287; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586; 84 So. 541; Settles v. [*344] State, 75 Fla. 296, 78 So. 287; Seymour v. State, 66 Fla. 133, 63 So. 7; McQuagge v. State, 80 Fla. 768, 87 So. 60; Gee v. State, 61 Fla. 22, 54 So. 458; Cooley v. State, 85 Fla. 46, 95 So. 126; Joyner v. State, 85 Fla. 384, 96 So. 155; Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414, 93 So. 672; C…
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simpson v. The First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1917)