NELLIE SCOTT WELCH
v.
E. C. WELCH
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 affirmed a divorce decree granted to a husband against his wife, finding the chancellor's conclusions supported by evidence and that recrimination was not legally established.
Yes, the chancellor's conclusions were amply supported by the evidence. No, recrimination was not legally established by pleading or proof.
“A careful review of the evidence discloses that the Chancellor’s conclusions in favor of the husband, of the issuable facts, are amply supported and that they should not be reversed.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the lower court's factual conclusions were supported by evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband filed for divorce against his wife. The trial court granted the divorce, and the wife appealed. The appellate court reviewed the evidence pr…
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.
This was a divorce suit brought by the husband against the wife. The decree was against the wife who has appealed. A careful review of the evidence discloses that the Chancellor’s conclusions in favor of the husband, of the issuable facts, are amply supported and that they should not be reversed. Foxworth v. Maddox, 103 Fla. 32, 137 Sou. Rep. 161; Wetherington v. Wetherington, 57 Fla. 551, 49 Sou. Rep. 549; Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215, 7 Sou. Rep. 864; Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858, 43 Sou. Rep. 923. Recrimination as a bar to a divorce otherwise grantable (except where adultery is the basis of the recrimination) should be fully asserted as an affirmative defense in the answer, and pleaded with the same particularity as a charge in a complaint for divorce. Newman *591v. Newman, 211 Mass. 508, 98 N. E. Rep. 507, Ann. Cas. 1913B 672. In cases of adultery, the court, iti its discretion, may take notice of it as a bar by way of recrimination, even though not pleaded, if the complainant’s adultery appears evident from the proofs. Fisher v. Fisher, 95 Md. 314, 52 Atl. Rep. 898, 93 A. S. R. 334. Recrimination was hot legally established by pleading or proof in this case. No charge of adultery on either side was alleged or shown. So the decree appealed from should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cole v. Cole, 130 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…e reasonably supports the findings of the chancellor, his. conclusions thereon will not be disturbed.” Phifer v. Phifer, 1936, 124 Fla. 223, 168 So. 9, 10. See also Baker v. Baker, 1927, 94 Fla. 1001, 114 So. 661; Welch v. Welch, 1933, 112 Fla. 590, 152 So. 173, and Stoneburg v. Stoneburg, 1935, 120 Fla. 188, 162 So. 334. In justifying this rule with the goal of the courts to ascertain the truth,, it is sometimes pointed out that in an equity-suit the chancellor, like a jury in an action at law, is the tri…
-
Jasper J. Alvarez et ux. v. Dumont, 178 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…ce reasonably supports the findings of the chancellor, his conclusions thereon will not be disturbed.’ Phifer v. Phifer, 1936, 124 Fla. 223, 168 So. 9, 10. See also Baker v. Baker, 1927, 94 Fla. 1001, 114 So. 661; Welch v. Welch, 1933, 112 Fla. 590, 152 So. 173, and Stoneburg v. Stoneburg, 1935, 120 Fla. 188, 162 So. 334. In justifying this rule with the goal of the courts to ascertain the truth, it is sometimes pointed out that in an equity suit the chancellor, like a jury in an action at law, is the trie…
-
Barrineau v. B & F Auto Parts, Inc., 191 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…ce reasonably supports the findings of the chancellor, his conclusions thereon will not be disturbed.’ Phifer v. Phifer, 1936, 124 Fla. 223, 168 So. 9, 10. See also Baker v. Baker, 1927, 94 Fla. 1001, 114 So. 661; Welch v. Welch, 1933, 112 Fla. 590, 152 So. 173, and Stoneburg v. Stoneburg, 1935, 120 Fla. 188, 162 So. 334. In justifying this rule with the goal of the courts to ascertain the truth, it is sometimes pointed out that in an equity suit the chancellor, like a jury in an action at law, is the trie…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858 (Fla. 1907)
- Palmer v. Electa E. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1890)
- R. J. Foxworth and his wife v. Maddox, 103 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1931)
- Berry Wetherington v. Wetherington, 57 Fla. 551 (Fla. 1909)