Hurst v. Hurst, (1946)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 15
Judges: THOMAS, J.:
Attorneys: Evan Evans, for petitioner.
Edwin C. Coffee, O.R.T. Bowden, for respondent.
Filed: Oct. 18, 1946
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The present controversy is the outgrowth of a divorce action between petitioner and respondent in which the former prevailed. No phase of the main contest is involved here, but only the subsequent order entered by the chancellor altering *Page 44 the provisions of the final decree fixing the custody of the three-year-old child of the parties. To give the background of this order we need, therefore, refer only to so much of the final decree and a stipulation recognized in it as dealt with the cus
Summary: The present controversy is the outgrowth of a divorce action between petitioner and respondent in which the former prevailed. No phase of the main contest is involved here, but only the subsequent order entered by the chancellor altering *Page 44 the provisions of the final decree fixing the custody of the three-year-old child of the parties. To give the background of this order we need, therefore, refer only to so much of the final decree and a stipulation recognized in it as dealt with the cust..
More
I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment prepared by Mr. Justice THOMAS because I feel that to adopt this conclusion this Court will be merely substituting its discretion in lieu of that of the Chancellor. This I am unwilling to do.
BROWN, J., concurs.
Source: CourtListener
