ETHEL GOOLSBY
v.
WILBUR T. GOOLSBY
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 lower court's denial of temporary alimony and suit money, finding no error in the Chancellor's decision after reviewing the evidence presented.
No, the Chancellor did not err in denying the petition for temporary alimony and suit money.
“We have examined the law and the record of the testimony before us and we cannot say that the Chancellor erred in his order denying defendant’s petition.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the lower court's decision was correct.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant, Wilbur T. Goolsby, sued for divorce. The defendant, Ethel Goolsby, petitioned for temporary alimony and suit money. The Chancellor de…
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 Suit Money cases and more on FLexlaw
— Complainant, Wilbur T. Goolsby, brought suit against Ethel Goolsby, the appellant, in the Circuit Court of Lee County, to secure a divorce. Defendant entered her appearance and petitioned the Chancellor for temporary alimony and suit money. Testimony was taken and the Chancellor entered a decree denying the prayer of the petitioner. Her petition for temporary alimony and suit money being denied in the lower court, was seasonably renewed in this Court and the Complainant has brought up the record of evidence taken below, properly certified, for our consideration.
When petitions for alimony and suit money are filed in this Court, we have generally followed the rule of referring them back to the Chancellor, to ascertain the faculties of the parties, but since that has been done, and we have the testimony taken by the Chancellor before us, it becomes unnecessary to follow that practice in the instant case.
Alimony is provided under Section 3194, Revised General Statutes of 1920, Section 4986, et seq., Compiled General Laws of 1927. We have examined the law and the record of the testimony before us and we cannot say that the Chancellor erred in his order denying defendant’s petition. Having been renewed in this Court, it is accordingly dismissed.
It is so ordered.
*580Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Troeger v. Troeger, 127 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1937)…founded, and that it is essential that the applicant have the appellate court’s aid in order to enable her to have her marital rights properly defended in the appellate proceedings. Duss v. Duss, 92 Fla. 1081, 111 Sou. Rep. 382; Goolsby v. Goolsby, 114 Fla. 578, 154 Sou. Rep. 522; Frohock v. Frohock, 117 Fla. 603, 158 Sou. Rep. 106. Where the wife is unsuccessful in a divorce suit, allowance of attorney’s fees, suit money and temporary alimony is not a matter of right, since it is presumed that divorce de…