BETTY B. COHOE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT W. COHOE, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1933-06-06
Whitfield, P. J., and BrowN and Buford, J. J., concur., ' Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
110 Fla. 425 Florida Supreme Court (1933)
Also reported at: 149 So. 476

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a wife's suit for separate maintenance, holding that the chancellor's decree was supported by substantial evidence, even if other findings were possible.


Holding

No, the decree of the chancellor will not be reversed if there is substantial evidence to sustain it or a material lack of evidence to support a different decree. The record supported the decree.


Key Quotes

“The only question presented for our determination is whether, or not the decree of the chancellor should be reversed because of the insufficiency of the evidence.”

Identifies the sole legal question before the appellate court.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

A wife filed a suit for separate maintenance, alleging she was living apart from her husband through no fault of her own. The suit was brought under s…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This was a suit for separate maintenance of the wife who has been living apart from her husband through no fault of hers. The suit is brought under provisions of Section 3197 R. G. S., 4989 C. G. L.'

The appeal is from final decree dismissing the bill of complaint.

The only question presented for our determination is whether, or not the decree of the chancellor should be reversed because of the insufficiency of the evidence. The rule is too well settled to require the citation of authorities that the.decree of the chancellor on the evidence will not be reversed if there is substantial evidence to sustain the decree or if there is a material lack of evidence upoh which to base a different decree.

We have examined the record and, while it appears that the chancellor might have found otherwise than he did, the record supports the decree. Therefore the same will be affirmed. ' - -

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and BrowN and Buford, J. J., concur.

' Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw