Gredler v. Gredler

Supreme Court of Florida

Gredler v. Gredler

36 Fla. 372

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 36 Fla. 372 (Gredler v. Gredler) 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

Gredler v. Gredler, 36 Fla. 372 (Fla. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Taylob, J.:

George A. Gredler, the appellant, on September '25th, 1889, sued the appellee, Sarah J. Gredler, by bill in equity, in the Circuit Court of Franklin county, for divorce. The defendant answered denying all the material allegations of the bill. ' Replication was filed, the cause was referred to a master to take and report the testimony; a voluminous amount of testimony was taken and reported to the court; a final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs was had, and this resulted in a decree dismissing the complainant’s bill; and from this decree the complainant appeals.

The complainant had wholly failed to allege in his bill, or to prove, that he had resided in this State for two years prior to the exhibition of his bill. In Phelan vs. Phelan, 12 Fla. 449, it was held, and we. think with entire correctness, that the fact of the applicant’s prior residence for two years in this State was necessary both to be alleged in the bill, and established by proof, before the courts were authorized to grant a divorce under our statute. Miller vs. Miller, 33 Fla. 453. In the absence of such allegation, and proof to .sustain it, the court below very properly dismissed the *ül at the final hearing.

The decree appealed from is affirmed.

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

Taylob, J.:

George A. Gredler, the appellant, on September '25th, 1889, sued the appellee, Sarah J. Gredler, by bill in equity, in the Circuit Court of Franklin county, for divorce. The defendant answered denying all the material allegations of the bill. ' Replication was filed, the cause was referred to a master to take and report the testimony; a voluminous amount of testimony was taken and reported to the court; a final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs was had, and this resulted in a decree dismissing the complainant’s bill; and from this decree the complainant appeals.

The complainant had wholly failed to allege in his bill, or to prove, that he had resided in this State for two years prior to the exhibition of his bill. In Phelan vs. Phelan, 12 Fla. 449, it was held, and we. think with entire correctness, that the fact of the applicant’s prior residence for two years in this State was necessary both to be alleged in the bill, and established by proof, before the courts were authorized to grant a divorce under our statute. Miller vs. Miller, 33 Fla. 453. In the absence of such allegation, and proof to .sustain it, the court below very properly dismissed the *ül at the final hearing.

The decree appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Fla. 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gredler-v-gredler-fla-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack