Judges: PER CURIAM.
Attorneys: Walsh, Beckham Ellis, for Appellant;
Marion E. Sibley and Harold Kassewitz, for Appellee.
Filed: Jan. 20, 1939
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This case is here on appeal from a final decree dated November 9, 1936, entered by the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. The case was recently before the Court on motion. See Riesner v. Riesner, 130 Fla. 489 , 176 So. 765 . The decree (a) granted a divorce to Leo M. Riesner; (b) awarded custody of the infant son, David Riesner, to the mother, Florence Riesner; (c) awarded weekly payments to Florence Riesner in the sum of $40.00 for the support and care of the infant son; (d) awarded the pos
Summary: This case is here on appeal from a final decree dated November 9, 1936, entered by the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. The case was recently before the Court on motion. See Riesner v. Riesner, 130 Fla. 489 , 176 So. 765 . The decree (a) granted a divorce to Leo M. Riesner; (b) awarded custody of the infant son, David Riesner, to the mother, Florence Riesner; (c) awarded weekly payments to Florence Riesner in the sum of $40.00 for the support and care of the infant son; (d) awarded the poss..
More
The parties to this suit have each filed petitions for a rehearing and complain of some of the terms, conclusions or conditions of the original opinion. Counsel for appellee contend that the evidence does not justify an increase of $10.00 per week, making the total amount the sum of $50.00 per week for the support and maintenance of the minor child, while counsel for appellant contends that the original opinion should be clarified so as to remove doubt and make certain the exact time when the additional allowance of $10.00 per week became effective. We have given due consideration to each contention appearing in the petitions for rehearing and hold that the additional allowance of $10.00 per week for the support and maintenance of the child as expressed in the original opinion will become effective on the date of the going down of the mandate of this court. The petitions for rehearing in this cause are each denied.
WHITFIELD, BROWN. and CHAPMAN, J.J., concur.
TERRELL and BUFORD, J.J., concur in opinion and judgment.
Justice THOMAS not participating as authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
