¶1 (concurring specially). — I concur in the views expressed in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Terrell, but think that it should be more clearly stated that we do not approve the final decree as written because the alternative left to be exercised by the appellant involves So much uncertainty that he is really left without knowledge as to what his exercise of the option will bring about. The decree is defective for want of certainty and, therefore, should be reformed.
134 Fla. 622
184 So 667
Selige v. Selige
Decided October 25, 1938
Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1938-10-25
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1940
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1938-10-25
View the full empirical analysis of this case →