ARCHIE LLOYD
v.
ELEANOR ATWATER LLOYD
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.
In this 1938 Florida case, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of a bill of complaint seeking separate maintenance and rejected the husband's cross-bill for annulment based on alleged coercion. The court held that while some coercion existed, the husband's prior agreement to marry the pregnant woman to legitimize their child constituted the controlling factor, and the level of coercion was insufficient to void the marriage.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that although some evidence of coercion existed, it was not sufficiently clear to constitute grounds for annulment given that the husband had prior knowledge of his responsibility as the father and had voluntarily agreed to marry the woman before any coercive threat was made.
“the controlling factor, as shown by the record, was that the young man had committed a grave indiscretion with the girl which resulted in her pregnancy, and that he agreed with her and her aunt that he would marry the girl to legitimatize the child”
Establishes the court's identification of the husband's prior voluntary agreement as the controlling factor distinguishing this case from one involving pure coercion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArchie Lloyd fathered a child with Eleanor Atwater and agreed on a Saturday to marry her the following Monday to legitimize the child, pay childbirth …
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 Annulment Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal is from an order dismissing bill of complaint in suit instituted for the purpose of compelling defendant to pay separate maintenance to the complaining wife and which order also dismissed the cross bill of the defendant by which he sought annulment of the marriage on the ground that it was not freely and voluntarily entered into, but was the result of coercion on the *674part of an uncle of the wife and a deputy sheriff and a friend of the uncle.
The question which we are required- to determine is whether or not the record including the evidence supports the findings of the matter approved by the Chancellor and the decree based thereon.
There is some evidence of coercion, but we think that the controlling factor, as shown by the record, was that the young man had committed a grave indiscretion with the girl which resulted in her pregnancy, and that he agreed with her and her aunt that he would marry the girl to legitimatize the child, would pay the expense incident to childbirth and furnish the girl some expense money, and that after the child should be born the girl would procure a divorce at his expense.
The proof amply establishes that Lloyd was the father of the child and that he recognized his responsibility and definitely agreed with the girl and her aunt that he would marry the girl on the following Monday after the agreement with them on Saturday.
Lloyd was twnety-eight years of age and the girl’ was • twenty-three.
The girl’s aunt heard that Lloyd intended to leave the State and she told her husband, Mr. Mitchell, a police officer in Miami, about the condition -of the girl, the agreement and Lloyd’s reported intention to leave the State before complying with his agreement’. Mitchell went to Port Lauderdale, got a deputy sheriff, returned with the deputy to Hollywood where Lloyd lived. There he called on Lloyd and told Lloyd in the presence of Lloyd’s father, that he would have to go then and marry the girl or be arrested. Lloyd chose to marry her rather than be arrested. He was clearly guilty of bastardy and knew that he was. We do *675not think there was clearly sufficient coercion to constitute ground for annulment of the marriage against the Master’s and Chancellor’s findings to the contrary. So, the order should be, and is, affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gribbin v. Gribbin, 499 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…cion” does not appear in the parties’ pre-trial stipulation. During the writer’s search for a definition of the word by Florida courts, Words & Phrases in Florida Digest disclosed an interesting case now almost half a century old. In Lloyd v. Lloyd, 132 Fla. 673, 182 So. 237 (1938), the court said: The proof amply establishes that Lloyd was the father of the child and that he recognized his responsibility and definitely agreed with the girl and her aunt that he would marry the girl on the following Monday…