Ramsay v. Ramsay

168 So. 12, 124 Fla. 266, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1102
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided May 6, 1936·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from interlocutory orders of Chancery Court entered in a divorce case. The orders appealed from being within the sound discretion of the Chancellor, are affirmed on the authority of Demos v. Walker, 99 Fla. 302, 125 Sou. Rep. 305; Holly v. Holly, 81 Fla. 881, 89 Sou. Rep. 132; Floyd v. Floyd, 91 Fla. 910, 108 Sou. Rep. 896; O’Gara v. Hancock, 76 Fla. 1, 79 Sou. Rep. *267 167; Rausch v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc., 77 Fla. 846, 82 Sou. Rep. 295. No abuse of discretion has been made to appear.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. 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

Ramsay v. Ramsay, 168 So. 12, 124 Fla. 266, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1102 (Fla. 1936).

168 So. 12 (Ramsay v. Ramsay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Floyd v. Floyd
108 So. 896 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1926)
Demos v. Walker
126 So. 305 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
O'Gara v. Hancock
79 So. 167 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)
Rausch v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
82 So. 295 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1919)
Holly v. Holly
89 So. 132 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)