JAMES D. COBB, APPELLANT,
v.
IRMA L. COBB, 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.
James D. Cobb appealed a trial court decree awarding his wife Irma L. Cobb temporary alimony and suit money without divorce. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a wife may obtain temporary alimony when the marital living arrangement is precarious to her health and peace of mind, even if the evidence is insufficient to support a divorce on grounds of cruelty or desertion.
A wife may maintain a bill for temporary alimony unconnected with divorce when the marriage relation is established and the husband's treatment makes living with him precarious to her health and peace of mind, regardless of whether such treatment would constitute grounds for divorce. The trial court properly rendered the decree awarding temporary alimony and suit money.
“In a proceeding of this character where the marriage relation is established, the Court has power to require the husband to provide temporary alimony and suit money for his wife.”
Establishes the court's jurisdiction and power to award temporary alimony independent of divorce proceedings when the marriage relation exists.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIrma L. Cobb filed suit against her husband James D. Cobb in Circuit Court for Okaloosa County seeking temporary alimony unconnected with a divorce ca…
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 Counsel Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, J.
The appellee, Irma L. Cobb began suit in the Circuit Court for Okaloosa ’County against her husband, James D. Cobb for alimony unconnected with cause of divorce under Sec. 3197 R. G. S. of 1920; Sec. 1934 Fla. Comp. Laws, 1914.
The defendant interposed a demurrer to the bill which seems not to have beep disposed of and the defepdant filed an answer denying that the complainant’s living apart from him was through his fault and denying that he failed to contribute to the maintenance of his wife. Testimony was taken by a Special Master and the court on final hearing rendered a decree against the defendant requiring him to pay to the complainant or her solicitor the sum of $15.00, as suit' money, $50.00 as temporary counsel fees, half the said sums to fie paid on June 1 and the other half on July 1, 1921, and that he pay the sum of $8.00 per week as temporary alimony during the pendency of the suit, the first payment to be made on Monday the 23d of' May and on Monday of each week thereafter. The Chancellor also decreed that in the event it should be shown by the testimony of reputable physicians that it is necessary for the complainant to have a change of climate on account of her health that the court will consider the same and make such further order as may be shown to be warranted by the testimony touching the expenses of such a change. Prom this interlocutory order the defendant appealed. Although, the demurrer to the .bill was not disposed of by the Chancellor in specific terms, yet by stipulation of counsel it was agreed that the Special Master should take the testimony and the cause went to a final hearing without objection. The decree of the Chancellor in effect overruled the demurrer because he decided the cause upon its merits thereby deeming the bill to be sufficient. At all events, we think that the demurrer should have been overruled and that the Chancellor was correct in deciding the cause upon its merits.
The contention that the plaintiff could not maintain the bill being a citizen or a resident of another State is not well founded. See Shrader v. Shrader, 36 Fla. 502, 18 So. 672; Miller v. Miller, 33 Fla. 453, 15 So. 222; Warren v. Warren, 73 Fla. 764, 75 So. 35. In a proceeding of this character where the marriage relation is established, the Court has power to require the husband to provide temporary alimony and suit money for his wife. See Wood v. Wood, 56 Fla. 882, 47 So. 560; Tippin v. Tippin, 60 Fla. 378, 53 So. 838.
Upon the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the allegations of the bill the rule is that the Chan cellor’s finding on the facts will be accorded tbe same weight as the verdict of a jury and a decree solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous. See Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. 97; Dean v. Dean, 36 Fla. 492, 18 So. 592; McGill v. Chappelle, 71 Fla. 479, 71 So. 836; City of Marianna v. Daniel, 74 Fla. 103, 76 So. 692; Simpson v. First Natl. Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539, 77 So. 204; Mickens v. Mickens, 75 Fla. 391, 78 So. 287.
While the evidence in this case may not be sufficient to sustain a suit for divorce upon the grounds either of extreme cruelty or desertion yet, it is quite sufficient to sustain the allegations of the bill that the defendant’s treatment of the complaint was of such character that living with him under the circumstances alleged was precarious both to her peace of mind and health and that her living apart from him was not due to her fault. In this conclusion we think the Chancellor was justified by the evidence and to such situations the section of our statute referred to above is applicable. No error having been made to appear in the record the decree of the Chancellor is affirmed.
Browne, C. J., Taylor, Whitfield and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Engebretsen v. Toley Engebretsen, 151 Fla. 372 (Fla. 1942)…led to the same weight as the verdict of a jury, and if there is competent evidence, which if believed, will support his findings, they will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. See Bosheir v. Moeller, 83 Fla. 10, 91 So. 181, and Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 So. 869 and the cases therein cited. Applying these principles to the record in this case, which I have read very carefully, since the rehearing was granted, I do not believe that we should disturb the decree of the chancellor except in two par…
-
Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 147 Fla. 243 (Fla. 1941)…So. 35, L. R. A. 1917E 490; (in the latter case Justice Whitfield filed a vigorous and able dissenting opinion); Donnelly v. Donnelly, 39 Fla. 229, 22 So. 648; Miller v. Miller, 33 Fla. 453, 15 So. 222, 24 L. R. A. 137. In the case of Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 So. 869, suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County by the wife against her husband, claiming alimony, unconnected with the cause of divorce, under the provisions of Section 4989 C. G. L., and it was contended that the wife plaintiff…
-
Crown Corp. v. Robinson, 128 Fla. 249 (Fla. 1937)…e court unless the appellant makes it clearly to appear that substantial error was committed by the Chancellor in his conclusions, or that the evidence clearly shows them to be erroneous. See Wilson v. Duncan, 92 Fla. 470, 112 Sou. 48; Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 Sou. 869; Davidson v. Collier, 75 Fla. 783, 78 Sou. 983; Edgar v. Bacon, et al., 97 Fla. 679, 122 Sou. 107; Day et ux. v. Weadock, 101 Fla. 333, 134 Sou. 525. See also cases cited in 1936 Cumulative Supplement to Encyclopedic Digest of Florida R…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Rosa Chappelle McGill and her husband S. D. McGill v. Chappelle, 71 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1916)
- Aden E. Waterman v. Reola A. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660 (Fla. 1891)
- Simpson v. The First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1917)
- Shrader v. Aurelia Shrader, 36 Fla. 502 (Fla. 1895)
- Warren v. Warren, 73 Fla. 764 (Fla. 1917)
- Simon v. Simon, 73 Fla. 919 (Fla. 1917)
- Mickens v. Mickens, 75 Fla. 391 (Fla. 1918)
- Miller v. Miller, 33 Fla. 453 (Fla. 1894)
- Walker J. Wood v. Capitola L. Wood, 56 Fla. 882 (Fla. 1908)
- Dean v. Dean, 36 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1895)