ROBERT C. HOOKER, APPELLANT,
v.
LUCINDA HOOKER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a divorce decree granted to a wife based on extreme cruelty and habitual indulgence of a violent and ungovernable temper. The court found sufficient evidence of the husband's cruel conduct towards his wife, particularly concerning his introduction of a woman of ill repute into their home.
Yes, the husband's conduct constituted extreme cruelty, and the trial court's decree was supported by the evidence. The court found the husband's actions, particularly his treatment of the wife and his association with another woman in the home, inflicted cruel suffering.
“While the wife was in bed from the effects of a most serious operation, the husband over her protest introduced into the house as a servant a woman of known dissolute character who with his evident approval, came into the room of himself and wife in an almost nude condition, and entered with him into the game of peek-a-boo, at the same time casting lascivious glances at him.”
Establishes the specific facts the court found to be extreme cruelty.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA wife sued for divorce on grounds including extreme cruelty and habitual indulgence of a violent and ungovernable temper. The husband appealed the di…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adultery cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
In this case the wife sued for a divorce upon the grounds of adultery, extreme cruelty and habitual indulgence of a violent and ungovernable temper. The decree was granted upon the last two grounds, and the husband appeals.
There is sharp conflict in the evidence upon all the charges, but we find from a careful reading of the record that extreme cruelty is made out, and the decree will not be disturbed.
While the wife was in bed from the effects of a most serious operation, the husband over her protest introduced into the house as a servant a woman of known dissolute character who with his evident approval, came into the room of himself and wife in an almost nude condition, and entered with him into the game of peek-a-boo, at the same time casting lascivious glances at him. There were other acts of impropriety testified -to as to this woman, and when the wife from her sick bed complained, the husband encouraged the woman in her tart replies to the wife. There were also conduct and remarks of the husband as to another woman that would naturaly drive any pure woman, as was the wife, to the verge of insanity, inflicting the most cruel sufferings.
These facts justify the divorce under the ruling in Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215, 7 South. Rep. 864, and bear no relation to the harmless flirting spoken of in Hancock v. Hancock, 55 Fla. 680, 45 South. Rep. 1020.
The decree is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. Baker, 94 Fla. 1001 (Fla. 1927)…to show such cause. Donald v. Donald, 21 Fla. 571; Williams v. Williams, 23 Fla. 324, 2 So. 768; Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215, 7 So. 864; Wethington v. Wethington, 57 Fla. 551, 49 So. 549; Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 So. 867; Hooker v. Hooker, 65 Fla. 53, 61 So. 121; Erdmans v. Erdmans, 90 Fla. 858, 107 So. 188; Kellogg v. Kellogg (Fla.) 111, So. 637. This Court is committed to the doctrine that occasional outbursts of passion, nagging, petulance, readiness to anger, frequent and unreasonable compl…
-
Walstrom v. Walstrom, 124 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1936)…held that extreme cruelty as a cause for divorce may be mental as well as bodily injury. To like effect was the opinion in the case of Wetherington v. Wetherington, 57 Fla. 551, 49 So. 549; Prawl v. Prawl, 58 Fla. 496, 50 So. 867; Hooker v. Hooker, 65 Fla. 53, 61 So. 121; Erdmans v. Erdmans, 90 Fla. 858, 107 So. 188; and Nolen v. Nolen, 121 Fla. 130, 163 So. 401. In the latter case we said: “There is probably no greater cruelty which may be inflicted upon a self-respecting, peace-loving man than that w…
-
Currie v. Currie, 120 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1935)…. Donald, 21 Fla. 571; Williams v. Williams, 23 Fla. 324, 2 Sou. Rep. 768; Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215; 7 Sou. Rep. 864; Wetherington v. Wetherington, supra; Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 Sou. Rep. 867, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 577; Hooker v. Hooker, 65 Fla. 53, 61 Sou. Rep. 121, 43 L. R .A. (N. S.) 964; Erdmans v. Erdmans, 90 Fla. 858, 107 Sou. Rep. 188; Kellog v. Kellog, 93 Fla. 261, 111 Sou. Rep. 637; Baker v. Baker, 94 Fla. 1001, 114 Sou. Rep. 661. While it is not necessarily cruelty for either spouse…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Hancock v. Hancock, 55 Fla. 680 (Fla. 1908)
- Palmer v. Electa E. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1890)