Brown v. Brown, No. 17864
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | LEWIS; TAYLOR |
| Citation | 239 S.C. 444,123 S.E.2d 772 |
| Parties | Hazel M. BROWN, Appellant, v. Tulley A. BROWN, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 17864 |
Page 772
v.
Tulley A. BROWN, Respondent.
[239 S.C. 445] Jack H. Page, Conway, for appellant.
Long & Long, Conway, for respondent.
LEWIS, Justice.
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 [239 S.C. 446] 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.
Page 773
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 continue reading
Request your trial
-
Godwin v. Godwin, No. 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, No. 18148
...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 The instant appeal imputes error to the trial court in awarding the husband a divorce and denying the wife's prayer for attorneys' fees. I......
-
Herbert v. Herbert, No. 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, No. 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......
-
Godwin v. Godwin, No. 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, No. 18148
...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 The instant appeal imputes error to the trial court in awarding the husband a divorce and denying the wife's prayer for attorneys' fees. I......
-
Herbert v. Herbert, No. 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, No. 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......