Dailey v. Dailey

166 So. 564, 123 Fla. 278, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 970
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 13, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 So. 564 (Dailey v. Dailey) 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
Dailey v. Dailey, 166 So. 564, 123 Fla. 278, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 970 (Fla. 1936).

Opinion

Davis, J.

On appeal from an order of the Circuit Court refusing plaintiff’s petition to voluntarily dismiss his own divorce proceeding, it appears that under the circumstances shown by the record to exist at the time plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal was applied for, the motion to dismiss was erroneously denied.

In cases for divorce where the wife employs counsel to advise her as to her rights and to resist on her behalf the prosecution of the pending divorce proceeding upon jurisdictional grounds, and counsel thereupon appears and renders valuable legal aid and services in the wife’s behalf that result in a determination on the husband’s part to voluntraily abandon his own suit for divorce, and the husband thereupon moves to voluntarily dismiss his own cause, the chancellor should ascertain and allow a reasonable attorney’s fee for the wife’s solicitor and require its payment, together with all accrued costs, as a condition of permitting the husband’s voluntary dismissal of his suit and may refuse permission for such dismissal until such attorney’s fee and costs are paid by plaintiff, but such Chancellor should not unconditionally refuse leave to dismiss the cause at the husband’s option, unless other and additional special equitable considerations are made to appear that demonstrate that a voluntary dismissal of the cause at the time applied for, will result in some manifest unjust advantage being taken of the wife thereby. In this case no such equitable considerations were shown, so the motion to dismiss should not have been unconditionally refused.

The order appealed from is reversed with directions to grant a dismissal of the proceeding below upon the terms and conditions set forth in this opinion.

*280 Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, J., concur. Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Related

Tinsley v. Tinsley
116 So. 2d 649 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Huls v. Smith
252 S.W.2d 917 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 So. 564, 123 Fla. 278, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dailey-v-dailey-fla-1936.