DORA GINSBURG
v.
BENJAMIN B. GINSBURG
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 final decree of divorce, finding no reversible error in the trial court's determination of residency and desertion based on the evidence presented. The appellate court reviewed the voluminous record and found the relevant testimony supported the lower court's decision.
Yes, the trial court was warranted in finding the plaintiff had resided in Florida for ninety days and that the defendant was guilty of wilful, obstinate, and continued desertion for one year. The proof was adapted to the allegations, entitling the plaintiff to relief.
“Regardless of all this, we have carefully considered the relevant testimony and find no reversible error apparent from the record.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's conclusion after reviewing the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed a final decree of divorce, raising three issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence for residency and desertion, and whether …
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.
Appeal brings for review final decree of divorce.
Appellant states three questions for our consideration, as follows:
“1. Upon all the evidence, was the court warranted in *457finding that the plaintiff had resided in the State of Florida for ninety days before the filing of the bill of complaint, as expressly required by Acts of 1935, Chapter 16975 ?
“2. Upon all the evidence, was the court warranted in finding that the defendant was guilty of wilful, obstinate and continued desertion for one year within the meaning of the Compiled Laws of Florida 1927, Article XIII, Section 4983?
“3. That even if upon all the evidence a finding of ‘residence’ and ‘wilful, obstinate and continued desertion’ within the meaning of the Florida statutes, is justified, still since proof is not adapted to the allegations of the bill, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief.”
The transcript of the record is voluminous.
The transcript of testimony covers more than 600 typewritten pages and at least three-fourths of that is of no value to either party to this suit. Hundreds of questions concerning immaterial matter and attempting to go into unimportant detail were asked and answered. Regardless of all this, we have carefully considered the relevant testimony and find no reversible error apparent from the record.
The decree is affirmed.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moorer v. Putnam Lumber Co., 152 Fla. 520 (Fla. 1943)…made by a special master. See Forehand v. Manly, 147 Fla. 287, 2 So. (2nd) 864. Under our judicial system disputes and conflicts in the testimony are for the jury under appropriate instructions. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. McIntosh, 144 Fla. 356, 198 So. 92. The findings of a chancellor on disputed questions of fact on appeal will not be disturbed if substantial testimony can be found in the record to support the challenged ruling. See Kent v. Knowles, 101 Fla. 1375, 133 So. 315; Farrington v. Harrison…