Thompson v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Florida

Thompson v. Thompson

105 So. 318, 90 Fla. 41

DecidedJune 15, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 105 So. 318 (Thompson v. Thompson) 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

Thompson v. Thompson, 105 So. 318, 90 Fla. 41 (Fla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

West, C. J.

This case was formerly here on motion to require appellant to pay a suitable sum for appellee’s solicitors’ fees for services rendered in this court and to require him to pay $100 which the chancellor had decreed should be paid to her solicitors for services rendered in the court below. The motion was denied. Thompson v. Thompson, 86 Fla. 515, 98 South. Rep. 589.

In the opinion then filed the conclusion now reached upon a consideration of the ease on its merits was forecasted. The court said that if appellee’s living apart from appellant “was through no fault of his, it follows, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that such conduct constituted desertion, ’ ’ and upon the theory that her living apart from him was through no fault of his, the motion was denied. The logical result of that decision is a reversal of the decree denying the prayer of the cross-bill of complaint.

*42 The cross-bill was filed after the alleged desertion had continued for the statutory period of one year. The proof sustains the allegations of the cross-bill and the prayer should have been granted. Dennison v. Dennison, 68 Fla. 519, 67 South. Rep. 114; Hudson v. Hudson, 59 Fla. 529, 51 South. Rep. 875.

The decree appealed from is reversed with directions to enter a decree in conformity with the conclusion herein announced.

Reversed.

Whitfield, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.

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

West, C. J.

This case was formerly here on motion to require appellant to pay a suitable sum for appellee’s solicitors’ fees for services rendered in this court and to require him to pay $100 which the chancellor had decreed should be paid to her solicitors for services rendered in the court below. The motion was denied. Thompson v. Thompson, 86 Fla. 515, 98 South. Rep. 589.

In the opinion then filed the conclusion now reached upon a consideration of the ease on its merits was forecasted. The court said that if appellee’s living apart from appellant “was through no fault of his, it follows, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that such conduct constituted desertion, ’ ’ and upon the theory that her living apart from him was through no fault of his, the motion was denied. The logical result of that decision is a reversal of the decree denying the prayer of the cross-bill of complaint.

*42 The cross-bill was filed after the alleged desertion had continued for the statutory period of one year. The proof sustains the allegations of the cross-bill and the prayer should have been granted. Dennison v. Dennison, 68 Fla. 519, 67 South. Rep. 114; Hudson v. Hudson, 59 Fla. 529, 51 South. Rep. 875.

The decree appealed from is reversed with directions to enter a decree in conformity with the conclusion herein announced.

Reversed.

Whitfield, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 So. 318, 90 Fla. 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-thompson-fla-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack