36 So. 2d 192 | Fla. | 1948
Lead Opinion
It is our conclusion that the chancellor did not err in finding the equities to be with the appellee and against the appellant and that the grounds alleged for divorce had been proven. See Heath v. Heath,
The decree appealed from is affirmed.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN, ADAMS, SEBRING, and BARNS, J.J., concur.
THOMAS, C. J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
HOBSON, J., not participating.
Dissenting Opinion
I cannot agree to the ruling that the estates by the entirety should be upset because the husband, 53 years old with enough business acumen to amass a fortune, didn't know what he was doing.