E. L. LOWRIE, APPELLANT,
v.
DAISEY LOWRIE, APPELLEE
Per Curiam.
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 decree; it is, therefore, con siclerecl, ordered and adjudged by tlie Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing.
Per Curiam.
The record in this cause has been carefully re-examined and the questions of law raised in briefs reconsidered. We do not approve the bill of complaint as a model pleading nor do we think the procedure in all respects regular, but on the issues presented by the bill and answer the finding of the Chancellor appears fair and just and is supported by legal evidence. It is therefore affirmed. See Slorah v. Wilcox, 59 Fla. 601, 52 So., 12; Baggott et al. v. Otis et al 65 Fla. 447, 62 So. 362; Craft v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 81 Fla., 55, 87 So. 41.
Decree affirmed on rehearing.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burns v. Smith Burns, 174 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…state as incidents to divorce, where not expressly or impliedly forbidden by any law or public policy and the record as made warranted such equitable procedure with consequent decree. See Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 So. 87; Lowrie v. Lowrie, 92 Fla. 337, 111 So. 288; Taylor v. Taylor [100 Fla. 1009], 130 So. 713.” We are of the view that here the chancellor in adjudicating the property rights of the Burnses could have found a special equitable interest in the property in favor of the husband. The…
Authorities Cited
- Craft v. Am. Agric. Chem. Co., 81 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1921)
- Baggott v. Otis, 65 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1913)
- Slorah v. Wilcox, 59 Fla. 601 (Fla. 1910)