JESSE F. POWELL APPELLANT,
v.
SUSANNA POWELL, 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.
Jesse F. Powell appealed a dismissal of his divorce complaint against Susanna Powell. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that Powell failed to provide sufficient evidence to support any of his alleged grounds for divorce.
The court affirmed the chancellor's dismissal. The evidence wholly failed to support the desertion claim, as there was no proof the alleged desertion had continued for the statutory one-year period. The findings on the other grounds alleged were not clearly erroneous and were supported by prior decisions of the court.
“The established rule here is that the findings of the chancellor on the facts, where the evidence is taken before a special master, should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless such findings are clearly shown to have been erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to the chancellor's factual findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePowell brought suit for divorce in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County on three grounds: (1) Susanna's wilful, obstinate, and continued desertion for…
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 Grounds For Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
— Appellant brought suit for divorce against appellee in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County. The grounds upon which the divorce was sought were (1) wilful, obstinate andi continued desertion of defendant by complainant fór a period of one year; (2) habitual indulgence by defendant in violent and ungovernable temper and (3) extreme cruelty by defendant to complainant.
There was service of subpoena upon defendant and thereafter a decree pro confesso was duly entered' against her. The testimony was taken before a master and submitted to the chancellor whereupon, upon a consideration of same, it was held that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the granting of the relief prayed and the bill was dismissed at the cost of complainant.
On this appeal the sole question presented is whether there was error in the order denying the relief prayed and dismissing the bill.
The established rule here is that the findings of the chancellor on the facts, where the evidence is taken before a special master, should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless such findings are clearly shown to have been erroneous. Simpson v. First National Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539, 77 South. Rep. 204; Baggott v. Otis, 65 Fla. 447, 62 South Rep. 362.
With respect to the alleged desertion, the evidence wholly fails. If there had been a wilful and obstinate-desertion of complainant by defendant, there is no proof that such desertion had been continued for the statutory period at the time the suit was instituted. It is true that the defendant testified that “I want to be free from him;” “that I can’t live with him any more,” and “I just don’t want to be bound to him,” but when she reached this determination, if such it may be called, is not made clear by the evidence of the complainant upon whom the bui’den rested to show that the alleged wilful and obstinate desertion of complainant by defendant had continued for a period of one year as alleged.
With respect to the other grounds alleged in the bill, it would serve no useful purpose to set out excerpts from the testimony. It is sufficient to say that the findings of the chancellor thereon are not clearly shown to be erron eons. On the contrary, such findings find ample support in the following decisions of this court. Ray v. Ray, 63 Fla. 558, 57 South. Rep. 609; Hancock v. Hancock, 55 Fla. 680, 45 South. Rep. 1020; Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858, 43 South. Rep. 923; Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215, 7 South. Rep. 864.
It follows that the decree appealed from must be affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Shouse, 83 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1922)…y. & Nav. Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394, 5 South. Rep. 714; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101, 64 South. Rep. 504; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Schumacher, 63 Fla. 137, 57 South. Rep. 603; Saunders Transfer Co. v. Underwood, 77 Fla. 167, 81 South. Rep. 105; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Scott, 76 Fla. 336, 79 South. Rep. 767; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Conant, 79 Fla. 668, 84 South. Rep. 688; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Pitkin, 64 Fla. 24, 59 South. Rep. 564; Tampa Electric Co. v. Gaffga, 81 Fla.…
-
Jordan v. Jordan, 100 Fla. 1586 (Fla. 1931)…ts the chancellor’s decree and as it is not made to appear that his findings were clearly erroneous the decree should stand affirmed. See Jackson v. Jackson, 80 Fla. 557, 86 So. R. 510; Burgess v. Wirt, 91 Fla. 425, 108 So. R. 169; Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 So. R. 105; Kreher v. Morley, 84 Fla. 121, 92 So. R. 686. The decree is affirmed. Terrell, C. J., and Brown, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.…
-
In re Est. of Mary A. Donnelly v. Ashby, 137 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1934)…is in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial court and a decree based largely or solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless' clearly erroneous. See: Fiser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 So. 501; Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 So. 105; Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93, 82 So. 611; Sandlin v. Hunter Company, 70 Fla. 514, 70 So. 553. It is strongly argued here that Miss Donnelly at the time of making her will was bitter toward the “Ashby tribe.” She had been made a party to the suit…
Previewing 3 of 15 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)
- Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858 (Fla. 1907)
- Hancock v. Hancock, 55 Fla. 680 (Fla. 1908)
- Palmer v. Electa E. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1890)
- Baggott v. Otis, 65 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1913)
- Ray v. Luella E. Ray, 63 Fla. 558 (Fla. 1912)