LIZZIE M. SCHAEFER
v.
OTTO H. SCHAEFER
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 the husband, while also ordering the husband to pay the wife $100 for her attorney's fees on appeal.
The Court affirmed the divorce decree and ordered the husband to pay the wife $100 for her attorney's fees in the Supreme Court.
“We find no reversible error disclosed by the record.”
This quote indicates the court's finding regarding the main appeal of the divorce decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a suit for divorce where the husband was the complainant and was granted a decree by the lower court. The wife appealed the decisio…
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 Divorce Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a suit for divorce in which the husband was complainant and was granted decree.
We find no reversible error disclosed by the record.
Heretofore appellant filed application for an order of this Court requiring appellee to .pay solicitor’s fees for the service of her solicitors in this Court, which matter was continued until final hearing of the cause.
It now appears to us that it is proper to require appellee to pay to appellant the sum of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars for her solicitor’s fees in this Court.
The decree appealed from is affirmed and the appellee, Otto H. Schaefer is ordered to pay the appellant One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars as and for her solicitor’s fees in this Court within thirty days after the mandate herein shall have been filed in the Court below.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyle v. Howe, 126 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1935)…ch 18, 1936. Per Curiam. This is the third appearance here of cases involving the construction of the fifth paragraph of the will of James Deering, deceased. For former cases see Howe v. Lowe, 103 Fla. 1196, 137 So. 521; Howe v. Fry, 116 Fla. 528, 157 So. 331. William L. Boyle, Sarah Bethel by her husband and next friend, Clarence Bethel, and Eli Pelchat brought their bill of complaint against Richard F. Howe, as sole Executor of the estate of James Deering, deceased, praying that the fifth paragraph of…
-
Woodward v. Woodward, 122 Fla. 300 (Fla. 1935)…allowance for either of such purposes will be ordered. Courtney v. Courtney, 108 Fla. 276, 146 Sou. Rep. 229; Worman v. Worman, 118 Fla. 471, 159 Sou. Rep. 577; Frohock v. Frohock, 117 Fla. 603, 158 Sou. Rep. 106; Schaefer v. Schaefer, 117 Fla. 103, 157 Sou. Rep. 331; McMillan v. McMillan, 114 Fla. 763, 154 Sou. Rep. 850. In Schaefer v. Schaefer, supra, a decree of divorce granted against the wife was affirmed, but'for good cause shown by timely petition filed in that case demonstrating that a substantial basis…
-
Howe v. Sands, 141 Fla. 813 (Fla. 1940)…urt and the case is here for review. Paragraph Five of the Last Will and Testament of James Deering has been considered and construed by this Court in the cases, viz.: Howe v. Lowe, 103 Fla. 1196, 133 So. 549, 137 So. 521; Howe v. Fry, 116 Fla. 528, 157 So. 331; Boyle v. Howe, 126 Fla. 662, 171 So. 667. The members of this Court were equally divided in Howe v. Lowe v. Fry, supra. It is contended that there should be a re-examination of the law and facts due to two changes in the personnel of the Court sinc…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence