The Daytona gazette=news. (Daytona, Fla.) 1901-1922, 1907-05-04
JUDGMENT OF
SUPREME COURT

Reverses the Decision of the Lower
Court in the Beekmsn Divorce
Case.-The Opinion.
Editor Gazctte-News-As there are
many of my friends who are not aware
that the Supreme Court of Florida has
reversed the decision of the lower court
in the divorce suit instituted against me
ask that you publish the opinion.
Other charges made but not men
toned in the opinion were not upheld
by the lower court, no evidence being
offered to sustain them, but on the
other hand they were entirely disproven
Respectfully,
D. D. BEEkMAN.
In the Supreme Court of Florida,
Division B.
January Term, A. d. 1907.
ID. ID. Beekman, Appellant l1-.,,
Ruth b. Beekman, Appellee County
Taylor, J.
On the Goth day of January, 1906,
the appellee AS complainant below filed
her bill in equity in the Circuit Court of
Volusia County in the Seventh Judicial
Circuit against her husband, the appel
liant ID. d. Beekman, for divorce 4 VIM
eulo, and for alimony, permanent and
pendente lite, and for suit money. Va
nous orders We're made granting tenn
porary alimony, attorneys fees, etc. A
large amount of testimony was taken,
and at the final hearing final decree
was rendered divorcing the parties a
vinculo, and awarding the custody Of
the infant child of the parties to the
complainant mother, and requiring the
defendant to pay the sum of five dollars
per week to the mother for the support
of the child. From this final decree the
defendant below appeals here. The rem
dition of the final decree and the orders
awarding alimony, and the entertain
ment Of the suit on behalf of the COM
plainant are assigned as errors.
At the threshold of this investigation
We think it is clear that the Circuit
Court of Volusia County, Florida, had
no jurisdiction under the law to enter
tain this bill for divorce on behalf of
the complainant therein at the time
it was filed by her. 1t appears by the
testimony in the cause, that the par
ties were married to each other at Home
City in the State of Ohio, on the 18th
day of June, 1904; that being the home
and domicile of the complainant father
and mother, with whom she resided up
to the time of her marriage with the de-
PENDANT. That she came to Florida in
December, 1908 with her mother as a
tourist visitor and here met the defend
ant and entered into a marriage engage
ment with him on or about January
18th, 1904, at which time she Was but
twenty years of age, and, she testified,
that she at the time determined to
make Daytona, Florida, her permanent
home.
Section l47S of the Revised Statutes
OF Florida as amended by Chapter 4726,
Laws Of 1899, in force at the time of
those proceedings provided as follows:
I'm order to obtain a divorce the COM
plainant must have resided two years in
the State of Florida before filing the bill =,
except where the defendant has been
guilty of the act of adultery in this
State, then any citizen of this State
may obtain divorce at any time, and
the two years residence shall not be re-
quired of such complainant" There is
no charge of adultery in this bill-the
only grounds alleged being cruel and in
human treatment and display of violent
and ungovernable temper The prere-
| quisite two years residence in this Safe,
of the complainant to the bill for di-
VOrce, has existed as the law OF this
State since the year 1858. See Chapter
522, Laws Of Florida of 1853. And in
passing upon it in several cases this
! court has uniformly held that such pre-
requisite two years residence in this
State was jurisdictional, and that our
| courts have no authority to grant d.
vorce unless such residence was both
alleged in the bill and established by
| the proofs. Phelan VS. Phelan, IL Fla.
449; Miller VS.. Miller, 80 Fla, 453, Is
South. Rep. 222; Gredler vs. Gredler, sc
Fla, 372, IS South. Rep. 1902; Donnelly
VS.. Donnelly, 80 Fla, 229, % South.
Rep. GAS. Under the facts as disclosed
by the records here the complainant had
not been q resident of Florida for two
years DeXt prior to the filing of her bill
on January 10th, 1906. She did not be-
come resident of Florida until after
the date of her marriage to the defend
ant on June 18th, 1904, when she came
here with him as his wife. Prior to that
date she was minor and member of
in the State of Ohio, and whether or not
the laws of Ohio permit female over
the age of eighteen but under the age Of
twenty-one to make a choice in that
State of her own domicile regardless of
the domicile of her Father, such law can
have no applicability in this State when
a minor under the age of twenty-one
years undertakes to adopt domicile in
Florida away from the domicile of her
living Father, located in the State of
Ohio. Under the laws Of Florida the
dOmicile 0f the Father is domicile Of his
minor children and such minors are IN
capable in Florida of making choice Of
domicile here independently of the dom
icile of their Father, and such disability
continues here with all minors, be they
age of twenty-one years. POtinger vs..
W iSntulhh, MAI. W, IolpcS -.
Forbes, Kay 34l; Somervil!e VS.. Somer-
vile, 5 Yes. Jr., 80; PaNon VS.. Mae
reight, 80 l.. K. Oh. Div, los; Sharpe vs..
Crispin, L. r. |. P l. d., GIL; School
directors VS.. James, Watts 4 Son pa
SOS; Tatlor's International Public Law,
p. 259.
But beside this the mere intention to
acquire a new domicile, unaccompanied
by actual removal. avails nothing
neither does the fact Of removal without
the intention, avail The factum ct
animus must both exist together. Smith
and Armstead vs.. Groom, Fla, 81.
Upon the coming in of the proofs show
ing this status Of the complainant s
wife, the court below erred i'll rendering
the final decree therein, but instead
should have dismissed the bill. Aside
from this We do not think that the