MCKINLEY TIDWELL
v.
EMMA LENA TIDWELL
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.
Husband appeals from final divorce decree granting wife divorce, suit money, and alimony based on extreme cruelty. The Florida Supreme Court affirms, applying the standard that appellate courts should not disturb a chancellor's findings on conflicting evidence unless clearly erroneous.
The court affirms the decree, holding that where the chancellor's findings are based on conflicting evidence, an appellate court should not disturb those findings unless it is clearly made to appear that they are erroneous.
“the principal parties to the suit having appeared before me and having observed them and their manner of testifying, it is my opinion, and so I find, that the equities are with the Complainant.”
The Master's finding that direct observation of the parties' demeanor supported the wife's case for divorce based on extreme cruelty.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife filed for divorce alleging extreme cruelty by her husband. A Special Master in Chancery heard evidence from both parties and other witnesses.…
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 Suit Money cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal here is from final decree granting complaining wife divorce, suit money and alimony.
The only question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree. The evidence is conflicting.
The Special Master in Chancery filed his report, as follows :
“1. That the court has jurisdiction of the'parties.
“2. That the complainant has maintained by competent evidence the allegations of her bill of complaint; that the defendant has been guilty of extreme cruelty toward the *248complainant, and that the complainant is entitled to a divorce from the defendant as prayed for in said bill.
“3. That the complainant is in very poor health, is without means of support, and that in consideration of the testimony with reference to the defendant’s ability to pay, in my opinion, a reasonable amount to be allowed to the complainant as permanent alimony would be the sum of $5.00 per week.
“4. That in accordance with the stipulation of counsel appearing in the record, the sum of $100.00 would be a reasonable fee to be allowed to the complainant’s solicitor in this cause.
“5. The testimony of the complainant with reference to misconduct of her husband toward her is only corroborated in part by the testimony of other witnesses, but the principal parties to the suit having appeared before me and having observed them and their manner of testifying, it is my opinion, and so I find, that the equities are with the Complainant.
‘‘6. That, a Master’s fee of $25.00 and the cost of reporting and transcribing testimony in the sum of $50.00, have been paid by the defendant.”
Exceptions were filed to the Master’s report. Hearing was bad thereon and the exceptions were overruled. Final decree was entered.
The Master in Chancery and the Chancellor might have found in favor of, and determined this controversy in the manner contended for by, the appellant, but in considering the conflicts in the evidence they both resolved the same in .favor of the appellee.
We .shall follow the often stated rule that the appellate court should not disturb the findings of the Chancellor based *249on conflicting evidence, unless it be clearly made to appear that such findings are erroneous.
The decree is affirmed.
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.