Dockery v. Dockery

Supreme Court of Florida

Dockery v. Dockery

43 So. 2d 460, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1070

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedDecember 20, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 So. 2d 460 (Dockery v. Dockery) 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

Dockery v. Dockery, 43 So. 2d 460, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1070 (Fla. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

The record and the briefs in this cause have been examined and we find no criticism with many of the chancellor's findings. We think he should have more clearly distinguished the interest of Clarence F. Dockery from that of Dockery Building Corporation in the subject matter of the litigation. It is also our view that the personal obligations of Clarence F. Dockery, such as support for his wife and children, alimony, attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses should be paid from the assets of Clarence F. Dockery and not from the assets of Dockery Building Corporation.

We are further of the view that the receiver should be required to make the regular accounting specified by the Statute, F.S.A. § 63.74, and that Annabel Dockery should be protected in her rights under the contract with Dockery Building Corporation.

The judgment appealed from is not altogether clear on these points so the cause is reversed with directions accordingly. In other respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.

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

The record and the briefs in this cause have been examined and we find no criticism with many of the chancellor's findings. We think he should have more clearly distinguished the interest of Clarence F. Dockery from that of Dockery Building Corporation in the subject matter of the litigation. It is also our view that the personal obligations of Clarence F. Dockery, such as support for his wife and children, alimony, attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses should be paid from the assets of Clarence F. Dockery and not from the assets of Dockery Building Corporation.

We are further of the view that the receiver should be required to make the regular accounting specified by the Statute, F.S.A. § 63.74, and that Annabel Dockery should be protected in her rights under the contract with Dockery Building Corporation.

The judgment appealed from is not altogether clear on these points so the cause is reversed with directions accordingly. In other respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 So. 2d 460, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dockery-v-dockery-fla-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack