Brown v. Brown
| Decision Date | 29 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 17864,17864 |
| Citation | 239 S.C. 444,123 S.E.2d 772 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Hazel M. BROWN, Appellant, v. Tulley A. BROWN, Respondent. |
Jack H. Page, Conway, for appellant.
Long & Long, Conway, for respondent.
The appellant and respondent are wife and husband respectively. They were married in 1957 and lived together until May, 1960, when the wife left her husband and brought this action in the Civil Court of Horry County for a divorce a mensa et thoro. The wife was granted support and maintenance pendente lite, but, upon a hearing on the merits, the trial Judge denied her further support from her husband upon the ground that she was substantially at fault in the separation and dismissed the complaint. She has appealed from these findings of the lower Court.
The wife left the home provided for her by the husband and charged him with physical cruelty and conduct which made it impossible for her to continue to live with him. The husband denied these charges and alleged that she was not entitled to the relief sought because she brought about all disagreements which arose between them. After hearing the testimony, the trial Judge concluded that the wife was substantially at fault in the separation and that her conduct provoked the difficulties of which she complains, so as to deprive her of any right to separate support and maintenance from her husband.
The exceptions challenge the foregoing factual findings of the trial Judge and, since this is an equity case, it is necessary that we review the evidence to determine whether or not such findings are supported by the preponderance of the evidence. In reviewing the evidence for such purpose, we do so with due regard to the findings of the lower Court and to the fact that the trial Judge who saw and heard the witnesses was in a better position than we to determine their credibility. Lee v. Lee, 237 S.C. 532, 118 S.E.2d 171; Inabinet v. Inabinet, 236 S.C. 52, 113 S.E.2d 66; Simonds v. Simonds, 232 S.C. 185, 101 S.E.2d 494; Twitty v. Harrison, 230 S.C. 174, 94 S.E.2d 879. In such cases, great weight is accorded the findings of fact of the trial Judge for, as stated in Lee v. Lee, he 'saw the witnesses, heard the testimony delivered from the stand, and had the benefit of that personal observance of and contact with the parties which is of peculiar value in arriving at a correct result in a case of this character.'
The wife testified that the husband struck her violently and without cause on at least four occasions while they were living together and that he brought into the home, over her objections, his grandchildren with whom it was impossible for her to live. The wife says that it was mainly for these reasons that she was forced to leave her husband.
After their marriage the parties resided on the husband's farm in Horry County. This was the second marriage for both. The wife was about forty-two years of age, according to the estimate of one witness, and the husband sixty-two. There were children of the prior marriages and the husband had grandchildren.
It appears that shortly after their marriage, the parties began having disagreements, mostly about money, property and the husband's grandchildren. These disagreements resulted, at times, in rather violent arguments during some of which blows were struck. There is testimony that the wife, while in a fit of anger, would strike her husband. The husband admits slapping her lightly on two or three occasions. He says that he slapped her when she called him a liar and on another occasion during an argument which followed the taking by the wife of some of his money. It appears that on the latter occasion the wife took a check belonging to the husband, endorsed his name thereon and deposited it in the bank to her credit, along with $300.00 obtained by her from the husband's pocketbook without his knowledge. This money was later returned to the husband before the institution of this action. When the husband found out about the actions of his wife in taking the money, an argument ensued, during which he says that, because of the belligerence of the wife, he slapped her.
While the wife has testified at length concerning the charges of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Godwin v. Godwin, 18310
...cruelty complained of was out of proportion to the provoking conduct. Miller v. Miller, 225 S.C. 274, 82 S.E.2d 119; Brown v. Brown, 239 S.C. 444, 123 S.E.2d 772. The underlying philosophy of public polic is to effect a reconciliation between an estranged husband and wife and restore unity ......
-
Brown v. Brown
...The trial court denied her relief and this court, on appeal, affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion. Brown v. Brown, 239 S.C. 444, 123 S.E.2d 772. The instant appeal imputes error to the trial court in awarding the husband a divorce and denying the wife's prayer for attorneys' fe......
-
Herbert v. Herbert, 19560
...relationship. Reliance for this position is had under the authority of Miller v. Miller, 225 S.C. 274, 82 S.E.2d 119; Brown v. Brown, 239 S.C. 444, 123 S.E.2d 772; and Nelson on Divorce 2nd Ed., Vol. 3, Section 32.21. The aforesaid rule was also recognized by this Court in Welch v. Welch, 2......
-
Skinner v. Skinner, 19360
...disruption of the marital relations was due to the misconduct of the wife, she was not entitled to an award for alimony, Brown v. brown, 239 S.C. 444, 123 S.E.2d 772, except upon the basis of the approved property settlement and agreement as to support, in which the husband agreed to pay al......