Pontius v. Pontius

Supreme Court of Florida

Pontius v. Pontius

6 So. 2d 3, 149 Fla. 396, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 784

DecidedJanuary 27, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 6 So. 2d 3 (Pontius v. Pontius) 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

Pontius v. Pontius, 6 So. 2d 3, 149 Fla. 396, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 784 (Fla. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner sought review of an order of the chancellor requiring compulsory amendment of a bill of complaint and ordering him to pay solicitors’ fees. The petitioner complied with the former by filing the amendment, therefore, we will not disturb the chancellor’s ruling.

A study of the testimony convinces us that the defendant did not comply with the rule frequently laid down by this Court with reference to establishing the necessity of the wife and the ability of the husband to pay and the relative financial worth of the two parties is such that the order requiring the payment of solicitors’ fees was unwarranted, therefore the writ of certiorari is issued and the order for the payment o”f the fees is quashed.

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

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

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner sought review of an order of the chancellor requiring compulsory amendment of a bill of complaint and ordering him to pay solicitors’ fees. The petitioner complied with the former by filing the amendment, therefore, we will not disturb the chancellor’s ruling.

A study of the testimony convinces us that the defendant did not comply with the rule frequently laid down by this Court with reference to establishing the necessity of the wife and the ability of the husband to pay and the relative financial worth of the two parties is such that the order requiring the payment of solicitors’ fees was unwarranted, therefore the writ of certiorari is issued and the order for the payment o”f the fees is quashed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 So. 2d 3, 149 Fla. 396, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pontius-v-pontius-fla-1942.