EDNA MAE WHITEHEAD
v.
H. C. WHITEHEAD
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 lower court's decision to reinstate a final divorce decree granted via constructive service. The appellant sought to vacate the decree, but the court found jurisdiction was proper and the evidence sufficient to support the chancellor's decision.
The court held that the statute was complied with, granting the court jurisdiction over the appellant. It also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the final decree, given the chancellor's careful consideration.
“The proceedings incident to the constructive service have been examined and we think the statute was complied with and that the Court was clothed with jurisdiction of the Appellant.”
Establishes the court's finding on jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA divorce was granted to the appellee from the appellant through constructive service. The appellant moved to vacate the final decree. After testimony…
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 Constructive Service cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee secured a divorce from appellant on constructive service. Appellant moved to vacate the final decree which was granted. On rehearing after the taking of testimony and argument of counsel, the chancellor reinstated the final decree. This appeal is from the latter decree.
*198Four questions are urged for reversal but as we see the issues, the only questions necessary to be answered are that of jurisdiction' and whether or not the evidence was sufficient to support the final decree.
The proceedings incident to the constructive service have been examined and we think the statute was complied with and that the Court was clothed with jurisdiction of the Appellant. The evidence was conflicting in some of its aspects and less would not have been sufficient but a wise chancellor is shown to have given the case very careful consideration and' we must decline to reverse his holding on' the showing made.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Buford and Tiiomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.