Summary
In Taylor v. Taylor, Fla. 1952, 59 So.2d 868, we held that a certified question which involves the application of ordinary rules of evidence is not within the contemplation of the applicable rules of this Court.
Summary of this case from Newcomb v. RoartyOpinion
July 18, 1952.
Dunham Dunham, St. Augustine, for plaintiff.
Upchurch, Melton Upchurch, St. Augustine, for defendant.
The Honorable Geo. Wm. Jackson, one of the Circuit Judges of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, has certified to this Court, under 30 F.S.A. Supreme Court Rule 38, the following questions or propositions of law for instruction:
1. "In a divorce suit instituted by a husband charging adultery, and the paternity of a child born after the separation of the parties is a material issue, does the trial court have the authority to require the husband, mother and child to submit to blood-typing tests?"
2. "If the blood-typing test is authorized, are the results admissible evidence in determining whether or not the wife committed adultery?"
3. "If the blood-typing test is authorized, are the results admissible together with other evidence in determining whether or not the wife committed adultery?"
It is the conclusion of this Court that the questions certified involve merely the application of ordinary rules of evidence and are not within the contemplation of Supreme Court Rule 38. See Schwob Co. of Florida v. Florida Industrial Commission, 152 Fla. 203, 11 So.2d 782; Scott v. Scott, Fla., 45 So.2d 878. The certificate should therefore be denied.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.