ANNA PORTER COSLICK
v.
GEORGE M. COSLICK
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.
This case involves a divorce proceeding where the appellate court reviewed interlocutory orders. The court reversed an order denying a motion to strike certain allegations of extreme cruelty, finding them insufficient and immaterial, but affirmed other orders denying motions to dismiss and appoint a guardian.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to strike allegations of extreme cruelty, as they were insufficient and immaterial. However, the court found no error in denying the motion to strike portions of the prayer and the motion to appoint a guardian, and that the bill had equity, thus the motion to dismiss was properly denied.
“Motion to strike "all of paragraph five from the first word therein, to-wit: 'Plaintff,' down to the semicolon following the words 'during their [*512] married life/ " should have been granted on the ground that the allegations so included were not sufficient to show extreme cruelty on the part of defendant toward complainant and were not material for any other purpose.”
This quote explains the reasoning for reversing the trial court's denial of the motion to strike certain allegations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant filed a bill of complaint for divorce. The defendant filed motions to dismiss the bill, to strike portions of the bill, and to appoint…
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 Legal Sufficiency Of Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal brings for review interlocutory orders denying motion to dismiss bill of complaint and denying motion to strike certain portions of bill of complaint filed in divorce proceedings and order denying motion to appoint Guardian for complainant. Motion to strike “all of paragraph five from the first word therein, to-wit: ‘Plaintff,’ down to the semicolon following the words 'during their *512married life/ ” should have been granted on the ground that the allegations so included were not sufficient to show extreme cruelty on the part of defendant toward complainant and were not material for any other purpose.
The order denying motion to strike portions of the prayer was without error.
The bill was not without equity and, therefore, motion to dismiss was properly denied.
The order denying motion to strike as above indicated is reversed. Order denying motion to strike portions of the prayer of the bill and orders denying motion to dismiss and order denying motion or prayer of cross bill for appointment of Guardian for complainant are affirmed.
Costs of appeal shall be prorated and taxed in equal portions against each of the parties and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
So ordered.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coslick v. Coslick, 136 Fla. 443 (Fla. 1938)…ound that the allegations so included were not sufficient to' show extreme cruelty on the part of defendant toward the complainant and were not material for any other purpose,” and that the other orders appealed from should be affirmed. See Coslick, 124 Fla. 511, 168 So. 847. The cause was remanded [*444] for further proceedings. There remained two alleged grounds of divorce, to-wit: violent and ungovernable temper and desertion. Answer was filed denying the material allegations of the bill and considerabl…