The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1882-06-20


Southern Railway Company, c. A. Boardman,
Isaac Taylor, w l.. Chandler, and H. G.
Whitney, Appellees. .-Alachua County
WEsTCoTT, j..
/. An original incOrpOratOr in The Florida
Southern Railway Company, first known as the
Gainesville. Ocaa and Charlotte Harbor Rail
road Company, was not, as such, independent Of
contract with the directors of the company
entitled under the charter of the corporation, on
the common law controlling The subject, To
proportion of the stock, to be determined bv the
number OF original incorporatOrs named in the
articles OF incorporation.
g. A grant OF land by the State of Florida to
corporation having power To make contracts for
the purpose of accomplishing cOrporOte purposes
is not grant to the original incorporat0rs sign
ing the articles authorized by the general law of
this Stale in the proportion in which they have
subscribed for STOCK nor does il authorize Il di-
vision or an allotment OF the land To the Oriri-
nal ncOrpOratOrs.
g. Stock is originally acquired in corporation
by subscription therefor. This subscription is
a contract defined and regulated by the organic
law of The corporation An incorporation is not
entitled To stock rs mere gratuity. He can
only acquire il by purchase. or by subscription
therefor, by which he contracts to pay calls and
assumes the other liability to creditors, am, the
company which such relation imposes.
Judgment reversed, demurrer sustained, and
the bill directed To be dismissed.
Thrasher & Hampton, for Appellant Taylor
& Sanchz, for Appeees.
John w. McGll, Appellant vs.. Mary J. McGill,
Thy next triendG Appelee-Gadsdcn county.
RANDALL, c. j.:
l. AT the common law neither husband or wife
could be witnesses for or against each other and
this exclusion was not solely on the ground of
pecuniary or property interest, but upon grounds
Ofpublic policy for the protection Of the marriage
relation. The statutes of tlis State have not re-
moved this incOmpetency, and in proceeding
for divorce neither the husband nor wife is
competent witness
2. " Habitual intemperance," rs ground for
divorce under the statute is persistent habit of
becoming Intoxicated from the use of strong
drinks. The offence is the habit and frequent re
curing drunkenness from such use proves it.
8. When the bonds OF matrimOny are dissolved
the parties should be placed by the decree Of the
court as near as may be in the situation they oc-
cupied before marriage. In respect to the sepa-
rate property of the wife, his estate therein is
extinguised by the divorce and decree may be
made that such property in the possession of The
husband, by virtue of the marital relation, be
surrendered to her.
4. Upon granting a decree of divorce clause
directing that the rents hire, issues, proceeds
profits OF the real property of the wife which
was in the care and management of the husband,
Dy Vlrture OI the marriage, ana w.iIch rents, &C.
accrued during the coverlure cannot be sustained
the statute providing that she cannot recover
them from him.
5. In granting decree of divorce, the court of
chancery exercises a discretion in awarding the
custody of minor children, having a regard to
the condition and fitness of the parents and the
interests of the children, the power being re-
served to alter or modify the decree in this re-
spect.
6. When final decree of divorce is sustained
upon appeal, an interlocutory order made on FL
ing the bill, restraining the defendant from in
terfering with or molesting the complainant. and
his family during the pendency OF the suit, and
in no wise affecting the decree, which order is
alleged to he irregular, will not be reviewed. If
such order was irregularly made, The final de-
cree will not be reversed for that reason.
Decree of divorce affirmed, except so much rs
requires defendant to surrender rents received.
j. W. Malone, for Appellants Stephens Il
Love, for Appellee.