Citation Numbers: 125 So. 694, 98 Fla. 1196
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Filed Date: 12/31/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The defendant below is guilty of culpable inattention to the progress of this cause, notwithstanding the assurance of complainant's counsel that defendant's Massachusetts *Page 1225 counsel would be notified "in plenty of time for the trial." After receiving that letter from complainant's counsel, defendant permitted a year and five months to elapse without making any inquiry whatever as to the progress of the cause, although he had heard nothing further from complainant's counsel. Such indifference is not consistent with due diligence, even under the circumstances. Even though this is a divorce suit, to which the State is a constructive party and which affects the good order of society, I think the defendant should not now be heard to question the sufficiency of the evidence adduced in support of the grounds for divorce alleged in the bill.
The jurisdictional infirmity because of complainant's lack of residence in Florida, however, is fatal to the decree, notwithstanding defendant's inattention to the suit. Because of the showing made in that behalf, I concur in the order of reversal. Wade v. Wade,
Ryan v. Ryan , 277 So. 2d 266 ( 1973 )
Holmes v. Holmes , 95 So. 2d 593 ( 1957 )
Martin v. Martin , 66 So. 2d 268 ( 1953 )
Campbell v. Campbell , 57 So. 2d 34 ( 1952 )
Groover v. Groover , 383 So. 2d 280 ( 1980 )
Ashmore v. Ashmore , 251 So. 2d 15 ( 1971 )
Wise v. Wise , 310 So. 2d 431 ( 1975 )
Martin v. Martin , 102 So. 2d 837 ( 1958 )
Wilburn v. Wilburn , 143 So. 2d 518 ( 1962 )
Sterling Factors v. US Bank Nat. Ass'n , 968 So. 2d 658 ( 2007 )
FLA. BD. OF REG. OF DEPT. OF ED. v. Harris , 338 So. 2d 215 ( 1976 )