JOHN EDGAR FARIS, SR.
v.
LOUISA FARIS WILLIAMS

Fla. | 1944-01-14
BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
154 Fla. 6 Florida Supreme Court (1944) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 16 So. 2d 293
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree regarding property settlement in a divorce case.


Facts & Procedural History

Louisa Faris sued John Edgar Faris for divorce and property settlement. The property was paid for with Louisa's money but deeded to both. John Edgar c…

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.


Opinion of the Court
TERRELL, J.:

*7TERRELL, J.:

Louisa Faris sued John Edgar Faris for divorce and a property settlement. The chancellor answered her prayer in the affirmative. John Edgar interposed no objection to that part of the final decree granting the divorce but appeals from that part requiring the property settlement.

Between them, Louisa and John Edgar had dipped five times in the matrimonial pool and both had grown children, the product of these ventures. She was a petite heiress and contributed over eight thousand dollars to the matrimonial venture; he was a carpenter, contributed a thirst for “little brown jug,” a lusty appetite, but no purse or scrip. They lived together about five years before domestic felicity commenced to sputter.

It appears that the property in question was paid for with Louisa’s money but by inadvertence was deeded to them as tenants in common or by the entireties. John Edgar contends that it was badly run down and that he should be permitted to keep half interest for labor performed in reconditioning it. The master found that Louisa married John Edgar in the hope that he would do what he contends that he did but that he actually worked very little, that he “soldiered” on the job, and contributed nothing to the family budget from which he got five years board and lodging.

It appears that Louisa went angling for a gígilo and John Edgar for a featherbed. The chancellor found that they angled in vain. He held that John Edgar should not reap where he did not sow and that Louisa should pay the cost of this proceeding including attorney’s fees.

We find no fault in his decree.

Affirmed.

BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Kennedy v. Ford R. Vandine, 185 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1966)
    …case to the lower court for trial of the issues. It is so ordered. CALDWELL, ERVIN and BARNS (Retired), JJ., concur. THORNAL, C. J., and O’CONNELL, J., dissent on jurisdiction. THOMAS, J., dissents. . On this point, see Faris v. Williams, 1944, 154 Fla. 6, 16 So. 2d 203; Allen v. Allen, Fla. App.1960, 123 So. 2d 355.…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw