McGill v. McGill
Citations
- 19 Fla. 341
Syllabus
<p>1. At tbe common law neither husband nor wife could be witnesses for or against each other, and this exclusion was not solely on the ground of pecuniary or property interest, but upon grounds of public policy for the protection of the marriage relation. The statutes of this State have not removed this ineompetency, and in a proceeding for a divorce neither the husband nor wife is a competent witness.</p> <p>2. “Habitual intemperance” as a ground for divorce under the statute is a persistent habit of becoming intoxicated from the use of strong drinks. The offence is the habit, and frequent recurring drunkenness from such use proves it.</p> <p>3. When the bonds of matrimony are dissolved the parties should be placed by the decree of the court as near as may be in the situation they occupied before marriage. In respect to the separate property of the wife, his estate therein is extinguished by the divorce, and a decree may be made that such property in the possession of the husband, by virtue of the marital relation, be surrendered to her.</p> <p>4. Upon granting a decree of divorce a clause directing that the rents, hire, issues-, proceeds or profits of the real property of the wife which was in the care and management of the husband, by virtue of the marriage, and which rents, &c., accrued during the coverture, cannot be sustained, the statute providing that she cannot recover them from him.</p> <p>5. In granting a decree of divorce the Court of Chancery exercises a discretion in awarding the custody of minor children, having a regard to the condition and fitness of the parents and the interests of the children, the power being reserved to alter or modify the decree in this respect.</p> <p>6. When a final decree of divorce is sustained upon appeal, an interlocutory order made on filing the bill, restraining the defendant from interfering with or molesting the complainant and his family during the pendency of the suit, and in nowise affecting the decree, which orde
Cited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Anderson v. WattSupreme Court· 1891-03-02· cited 200×
- Schnabel v. BettsSupreme Court of Florida· 1887-01-15· cited 14×
- Terrell v. WeymouthSupreme Court of Florida· 1893-06-15· cited 13×
- Ex parte BevilleSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 13×
- Everett v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-01-15· cited 10×
- Robert Marye & Co. v. RootSupreme Court of Florida· 1891-01-15· cited 9×
- Hayes v. HayesSupreme Court of Florida· 1923-11-03· cited 9×
- Bill v. BillSupreme Court of Iowa· 1916-04-07· cited 9×
- Tarrant v. TarrantMissouri Court of Appeals· 1911-05-02· cited 9×
- Eppinger, Russell & Co. v. CanepaSupreme Court of Florida· 1883-06-15· cited 8×
- Storrs v. StorrsSupreme Court of Florida· 1887-01-15· cited 8×
- Todd v. ToddSupreme Court of Florida· 1951-12-21· cited 7×
- Daniel v. DanielDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1970-06-09· cited 4×
- Silver Beach Investments of Destin, LC v. Silver Beach Towers Property Owners Ass'nSupreme Court of Florida· 2017-07-13· cited 3×
- Simmons v. SprattSupreme Court of Florida· 1886-06-15· cited 2×
- Harris v. HarrisSupreme Court of Florida· 1913-01-28· cited 2×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.