Condon v. Condon

157 So. 177, 117 Fla. 98, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1198
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 26, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 157 So. 177 (Condon v. Condon) 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
Condon v. Condon, 157 So. 177, 117 Fla. 98, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1198 (Fla. 1934).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant complains of an interlocutory order requiring him to pay $100.00 solicitor’s fees for appellee’s solicitor; $10.00 fee for reporting the testimony in the case, and an order for the payment of $10.00 per week alimony pendente lite until further order of the court. Appellee’s bill for separate maintenance was brought under Section 4988 C. G. L., 3196 R. G. S. It appeared from the bill that the parties having once been divorced from each other on a suit filed by the wife, had thereafter remarried and lived together again for about two years. Both the parties had for years operated a restaurant in the City of DeLand, the wife assisting her husband in the business which was owned by him, and not charging or being paid any salary or compensation for her service. Her complaint in the present case is that she is now forced to live apart from him through his fault in cursing, abusing and villifying *100 her without excuse, to such extent that it is beyond her capacity to bear. The order appealed from was entered after a hearing of evidence pro and con.

The only matter proper to be decided on the present appeal is whether or not the court abused its discretion in making the order appealed from under the circumstances appearing of record in the cause at the time the order was made. The sufficiency of the bill of complaint is not essentially in issue on an application for temporary alimony, solicitor’s fees and costs, as defects, if they exist in the bill as filed, may be amendable.

Order affirmed.

> Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

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

Related

Turnipseed v. Turnipseed
158 So. 2d 808 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
McFarlin v. McFarlin
75 So. 2d 580 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1954)
Driggers v. Pearson
192 So. 881 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 So. 177, 117 Fla. 98, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/condon-v-condon-fla-1934.