LOUIS KENNEDY, APPELLANT,
v.
MABEL KENNEDY, APPELLEE
The record in this cause having been •considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14553, Acts of 1929, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered, and decreed by the Court that the decree of the court below should be, and the same is hereby, reversed as to the portion granting divorce to complainant and awarding of attorney’s fees, with directions to enter a decree granting a divorce to defendant upon his cross-bill; and the decree is affirmed as to the award of custody of the two minor children and the amount for their support.
Buford, G.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Fields v. Fields, 143 Fla. 886 (Fla. 1940)…n she bore or unable to meet the responsibility for which nature prepared her. While we have said that the “welfare (of children) becomes paramount to that of the comforts, desires and welfare of either or both of the parents” (Kennnedy v. Kennedy, 101 Fla. 239, 245, 134 South. Rep. 201, 203) we have also held that “The statutes of this state recognize the natural, inherent and consequently legal right of parents to have the custody of their children.” (Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164, 168, 147 South. Rep…
-
Dworkis v. Dworkis, 111 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…lty, desertion, and adultery. Parenthetically, one question raised on the appeal is as to the propriety of the action of the court in allowing that amendment. The order granting leave to the husband to so amend was not error. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 101 Fla. 239, 134 So. 201. Rule 1.15(a) and (e) of 1954 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., authorizes and encourages such amendments when justice so requires, to be determined in the sound discretion of the court. See 3 Moore, Federal Practice, § 15.08…
-
Jaudon v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 102 Fla. 782 (Fla. 1931)…circumstances of this case. This Court has held that' ‘ ‘ Counsel for complainant is an improper witness to testify as to the reasonableness of fees to be charged by him for services rendered to complainant in a pending suit.” Kennedy v. Kennedy, 101 Fla. 239, 134 So. 201; Flournoy v. Smith, 84 Fla. 553, 94 So. 503. It will be noted that the above principle of law has reference to testimony as to the “reasonableness” of fee and not as to “agreement” to pay a reasonable fee. Appellant contends that unde…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence