39 Fla. 229 | Fla. | 1897
A bill was filed in the lower court by appellee ■against appellant alleging that the parties were married in the State of South Carolina on the 17th day of
Defendant filed an answer denying the allegations-of the bill, except as to the marriage in South Carolina, but there is no statement therein that the parties, or either of them, were residents of the State of Florida.
Proof was taken, and on final hearing the court allowed alimony of ten dollars per month, and fifty dollars attorney fees, and from this decree defendant appealed.
The proceedings in this case was to obtain alimony;, not for a divorce. Under section 1485 Revised Statutes, suit may be instituted for alimony, unconnected
The residence of the parties in Florida is nowhere stated in the bill before us, nor are any such jurisdictional facts as to the residence of the parties, or either of them, stated as to authorize the court to render any decree on the bill. Public policy, as indicated by our statutes, requires that before parties to the marital state can invoke the jurisdictional power of our courts, either to dissolve the relation, or enforce duties dependent thereon, they must be in a situation to avail themselves of the protection of our laws. The bill alleges that the parties were married in South Carolina in 1872; that the husband bought a lot in Ocala, Marion county, Florida, and both parties enjoyed it until within four years of the filing of the bill, but this is no allegation that the parties resided on the lot, even four years before the filing of the bill. The citizenship of the parties at the time of filing the bill is nowhere stated, and in fact, there is no averment that either of them was ever a tona fide resident citizen of this State. It is a rule in chancery, as well as at law, that the allegations and proof must correspond, and in order to sustain a decree it must be supported both by the allegations and the proof. In the absence of al