Simon v. Simon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Simon v. Simon

114 So. 2d 21, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2693

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1959

DocketNo. 58-538

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 114 So. 2d 21 (Simon v. Simon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Simon v. Simon, 114 So. 2d 21, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2693 (Fla. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by a husband from an adverse decree which granted the appellee wife a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, the main question presented is whether the findings of the chancellor have adequate factual and legal support in the evidence.

At the outset we are confronted with the fact that material parts of the testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff below are not included in the record which is before us.¹

A review of so much of the record as is before us fails to disclose that the chancellor’s findings, conclusions and decree were without adequate supporting evidence or denoted a misapplication of controlling legal principles. Being unable to assess the value and extent of the evidence which was before the chancellor, we hereby affirm the decree. See Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 226; Fricke v. Gaines Construction Co., Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 374; Hall v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 599; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 204.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur. MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by a husband from an adverse decree which granted the appellee wife a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, the main question presented is whether the findings of the chancellor have adequate factual and legal support in the evidence.

At the outset we are confronted with the fact that material parts of the testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff below are not included in the record which is before us.¹

A review of so much of the record as is before us fails to disclose that the chancellor’s findings, conclusions and decree were without adequate supporting evidence or denoted a misapplication of controlling legal principles. Being unable to assess the value and extent of the evidence which was before the chancellor, we hereby affirm the decree. See Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 226; Fricke v. Gaines Construction Co., Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 374; Hall v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 599; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 204.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur. MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 So. 2d 21, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-simon-fladistctapp-1959.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack