JAMES K. GIBBS
v.
MARGARETTE GIBBS
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.
James Gibbs appealed a divorce denial in which the trial court rejected his claims of impotency, extreme cruelty, and fraud. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that impotency requires an absolute inability to copulate (not merely sterility or inability to procreate) and that the evidence of mental deficiency and fraud was unsupported and subject to condonation.
Impotency for purposes of divorce means the absence of power to copulate, not merely the inability to procreate or sterility. The evidence of the wife's alleged mental deficiency and fraudulent concealment of sterilization was insufficient and unsupported by competent testimony; moreover, any such fraud was subject to condonation based on the year of courtship and seven years of cohabitation.
“impotency as absence of the power to copulate. If the power to copulate is present the possessor is not impotent though he may or may not have the power to procreate.”
Establishes the legal standard for impotency under Florida law, distinguishing it from sterility or inability to procreate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Gibbs sued appellee Margarette Gibbs for divorce alleging impotency, extreme cruelty, and fraud. The allegations included that the defendant…
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 Condonation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant sued appellee for divorce grounding his claim on impotency, extreme cruelty and fraud in procuring the marriage contract. There was an answer denying the material allegátions of the bill and on final hearing the Chancellor found the equities to be with the defendant, denied the divorce, and dismissed the cause.. This appeal is from the final decree.
The first question urged turns on a judicial determination of the words “naturally impotent,” being one of the grounds for divorce in Section 65.04 (2) Florida Statutes of 1941.
*405Payne v. Payne, 46 Minn. 467, 49 N. W. 230 and Smith v. Smith, 206 Mo. App. 646, 229 S.W. 398, are two leading cases in the country on the point and both define impotency as absence of the power to copulate. If the power to copulate is present the possessor is not impotent though he may or may not have the power to procreate. This seems to be the rule generally approved throughout the country, it was followed by the Chancellor, and it is the rule of this Court.
The charge of fraud and extreme cruelty are predicated on the allegation that defendant never matured mentally beyond her tenth year, that she procured the performance of an operation of her anatomy which rendered her sterile, and that she concealed this information from the plaintiff till long after their marriage.
The evidence relating to these charges is in hopeless conflict, but we find the decree appealed from supported by competent testimony. Save the bare allegation of appellant there is no support for the charges that appellee is a moron. It would be contrary to every element of fair trial to rest one spouse’s I. Q. rating on the bare allegation of .the other when sparring in the divorce court. Whether a spouse is a moron or a potential Phi Beta Kappa is a question of fact not here established but if it had been, there is no point between these extremes where the law of Florida inhibits one from becoming a party to a marriage contract. The parties to the instant contract indulged in one year of courtship and lived together seven years, sufficient to condone and raise the statute of limitations against this contention.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cott v. De Lancy George Cott, 98 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)…pivots on the question of whether or not in the governing statute, section 65.04(2), Florida Statutes, 1955, F.S.A., the term “naturally impotent” contemplates or has the same connotation as congenitally impotent. The case of Gibbs v. Gibbs, 1945, 156 Fla. 404, 23 So. 2d 382, involved a suit for divorce in which one of the grounds was natural impotence. This ground was not sustained. The court stated: “The first question urged turns on a judicial determination of the words ‘naturally impotent,’ being one…