J. H. THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY THOMPSON, 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 reversed a lower court's decree, holding that a wife's living apart from her husband constituted desertion, entitling her to relief on her cross-bill. The court found the evidence supported the cross-bill's allegations.
Yes, the wife's living apart from the husband constituted desertion, and the lower court should have granted her cross-bill. The proof sustained the allegations of the cross-bill.
“if appellee's living apart from appellant "was through no fault of his, it follows, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that such conduct constituted desertion,"”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for deeming the wife's separation as desertion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee (wife) was living apart from the appellant (husband). The husband filed a cross-bill seeking relief based on this separation, alleging de…
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.
West, C. J.
This case was formerly here on motion to require appellant to pay a suitable sum for appellee’s solicitors’ fees for services rendered in this court and to require him to pay $100 which the chancellor had decreed should be paid to her solicitors for services rendered in the court below. The motion was denied. Thompson v. Thompson, 86 Fla. 515, 98 South. Rep. 589.
In the opinion then filed the conclusion now reached upon a consideration of the ease on its merits was forecasted. The court said that if appellee’s living apart from appellant “was through no fault of his, it follows, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that such conduct constituted desertion, ’ ’ and upon the theory that her living apart from him was through no fault of his, the motion was denied. The logical result of that decision is a reversal of the decree denying the prayer of the cross-bill of complaint. The cross-bill was filed after the alleged desertion had continued for the statutory period of one year. The proof sustains the allegations of the cross-bill and the prayer should have been granted. Dennison v. Dennison, 68 Fla. 519, 67 South. Rep. 114; Hudson v. Hudson, 59 Fla. 529, 51 South. Rep. 875.
The decree appealed from is reversed with directions to enter a decree in conformity with the conclusion herein announced.
Reversed.
Whitfield, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. Thompson, 86 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1923)
- Hudson v. Hudson, 59 Fla. 529 (Fla. 1910)
- Dennison v. Dennison, 68 Fla. 519 (Fla. 1914)