EUGENIE CHAMBERS
v.
JOHN W. CHAMBERS
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 order granting a divorce to the plaintiff husband while denying the defendant wife's requests for suit money and alimony. The court found no reversible error after reviewing the record and arguments.
The court found no reversible error, implying that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficiently proven for divorce and that the wife's claims were either not proven or not res judicata.
“On appeal we review order granting divorce and denying defendant wife suit money and alimony.”
This quote establishes the nature of the appeal and the lower court's decision being reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff husband filed for divorce. The defendant wife alleged the husband was extremely cruel, struck her multiple times, and told her to leave.…
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
On appeal we review order granting divorce and denying defendant wife suit money and alimony.
Questions presented by appellant are:
Question No. 1: Did the plaintiff in his suit for divorce sustain the allegations of the bill of complaint where the evidence affirmatively shows that the plaintiff struck the defendant several times, was extremely cruel to her, told her it was necessary for her to .leave him and return to Miami; and where it affirmatively appears that the defendant left the plaintiff against her will?
Question No. 2: Was the defendant’s prayer for separate maintenance and support res judicata?
No useful purpose may be served by promulgating an opinion in this case.
The record has been examined in the light of the briefs and oral argument at the bar of the Court and we find no reversible error is made to appear
The decree is affirmed.
*740So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.