Carlton v. Carlton

100 So. 745, 87 Fla. 460
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 10, 1924
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 100 So. 745 (Carlton v. Carlton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carlton v. Carlton, 100 So. 745, 87 Fla. 460 (Fla. 1924).

Opinion

Whitfield, J.

On the former appeal herein-a decree granting a divorce to the-husband and denying alimony to -the- wife was affirmed as to the divorce and reversed as to -the alimony, the cause being remanded for appropriate proceedings awarding the wife a reasonable allowance for [461]*461her maintenance and support. Carlton v. Carlton, 78 Fla. 252, 83 South. Rep. 87.

Subsequently an appeal was taken from an order denying a motion made by the complainant to dismiss-the proceedings on the ground that his divorced wife had married. The Chancellor states in *his order that he would have granted the motion, but denied it only’ because he regarded the opinon of this court as holding the defendant divorced wife to have “a special equity in the property” of the husband. Some of the language of the opinion is not clear, but its import is that under the circumstances of the case as stated the divorced wife should equitably have from her husband a reasonable allowance for her maintenance and support. As the divorced wife has married, she is not entitled to alimony or maintenance and support (1 R. C. L. 950), therefore the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with direction to dismiss the proceedings.

It is so ordered.

West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Táylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Linstroth v. Dorgan
2 So. 3d 305 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Lynch v. Lynch
437 So. 2d 234 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Hartzell v. Hartzell
434 So. 2d 353 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Claughton v. Claughton
393 So. 2d 1061 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
Frye v. Frye
385 So. 2d 1383 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Claughton v. Claughton
361 So. 2d 752 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Seale v. Seale
350 So. 2d 96 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Reese v. Reese
178 So. 2d 913 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Friedman v. Schneider
52 So. 2d 420 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1951)
Vance v. Vance
197 So. 128 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
State Ex Rel. Willard v. Harrison
183 So. 464 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Alsop v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
92 F.2d 148 (Third Circuit, 1937)
Mindlin v. Mindlin
66 P.2d 260 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1937)
Sides v. Pittman
150 So. 211 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1933)
Smith v. Smith
107 So. 257 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1925)
Phy v. Phy
240 P. 237 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 So. 745, 87 Fla. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlton-v-carlton-fla-1924.