Allbritton v. Allbritton, 19554
| Decision Date | 22 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 19554,19554 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ruth H. ALLBRITTON, Respondent, v. Hoyt G. ALLBRITTON, Appellant. |
Paul N. Uricchio, Jr., and Arthur G. Howe, Charleston, for appellant.
Morris D. Rosen and Marvin I. Oberman, Charleston, for respondent.
This is an action for separate support and maintenance, the parties being approximately 50 years of age; their marriage being the second one for each of them, and no children being involved. The wife's complaint alleged in substance that the appellant husband was an excessive user of alcohol; was guilty of physical cruelty to the wife and had threatened her with serious bodily harm, all of which was denied by the husband. The action was referred to the Master in Equity for Charleston County, who held references therein and filed a report in which all pertinent findings of fact were favorable to the husband and adverse to the wife. Upon exceptions to the master's report, the county judge made independent findings of fact contrary to those of the master, and held the wife entitled to separate support and maintenance and attorney's fees. From such order the husband now appeals.
In equity case it is the duty of this Court to review challenged findings of fact as well as matters of law, and this is, of course, true where, as here, the master and the judge have disagreed and made contrary findings on material factual issues. But such duty on our part does not require that we disregard the findings of the court below; nor does it relieve the appellant of the burden of convincing this Court that the trial judge committed error in his findings of fact. See various cases collected in West's South Carolina Digest, Appeal and Error, k901, 994(3), 1009(1), 1022(4).
We have carefully scrutinized and considered all of the evidence, some of which is rather sordid, and concluded that no useful purpose could possibly be served by restating and analyzing the testimony. We think it sufficient to say that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of convincing this Court that the trial judge erred in his findings of fact. As might be expected, the evidence is in sharp conflict in some respects, but the order of the lower court reflects a careful analysis of such conflicting evidence and the inferences logically and reasonably drawn therefrom. Far from being convinced of error on his part, we are of the view that the preponderance of the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nienow v. Nienow
...262 S.C. 341, 204 S.E.2d 389 (1974). However, we are not required to disregard findings of the lower courts. Allbritton v. Allbritton, 260 S.C. 61, 194 S.E.2d 197 (1973). Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact by the trial judge and master are binding on this Court unless they are without......
-
Wood v. Wood, 20547
...for the purpose of determining the facts in accordance with our own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Allbritton v. Allbritton, 260 S.C. 61, 194 S.E.2d 197 (1973). Mr. and Mrs. Wood were married in 1967 and one male child was born to this union in April 1969. At the time of the mar......
-
Spires v. Higgins, 20795
...burden of convincing this Court that the lower court committed error. Cook v. Cobb, S.C., 245 S.E.2d 612 (1978); Allbritton v. Allbritton, 260 S.C. 61, 194 S.E.2d 197 (1973). Mrs. Higgins first contends the lower court erred by requiring Mr. Spires to pay only sixty five ($65.00) dollars pe......
-
Cameron-Brown Co. v. Porter, CAMERON-BROWN
...the judge and the master disagreed, the appellant still has the burden to show the judge's finding was incorrect. Allbritton v. Allbritton, 260 S.C. 61, 194 S.E.2d 197 (1973). The record and argument do not persuade us the trial judge erred. Accordingly, we affirm the order and ...