Ex parte Harmon
| Decision Date | 06 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19248,19248 |
| Citation | 256 S.C. 328,182 S.E.2d 300 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ex parte Jean J. HARMON, Respondent. In re Tibitha Woods HARMON, Appellant, v. James Bynum HARMON, Respondent. |
C. Ben Bowen, Abrams, Bowen & Townes, Greenville, for appellant.
Marvin R. Watson, Watson & Ayers and William K. Charles, Jr., Charles & Charles, Greenwood, for respondent.
The plaintiff, Tibitha Woods Harmon (whom we shall refer to as the second wife) brought this action against James Bynum Harmon (whom we shall call the husband) seeking a divorce absolute, and seeking alimony and attorney's fees. She alleges that her husband is living in adultery with Jean J. Harmon, whom we shall call the first wife.
The husband answered, setting forth first, a general denial. He further alleges by way of defense that heretofore, while married to the first wife, he entered into an adulterous relationship with the second wife. He alleges that incident to such relationship she falsely represented that she was pregnant and induced him to go to Mexico and procure a Mexican divorce from the first wife. Thereafter, it is alleged, the husband and the second wife entered into a purported marriage contract at Laredo, Texas. The answer further asserts that she was not actually pregnant and that the purported Mexican divorce and the purported Texas marriage are void. He therefore contends that he is still legally married to the first wife, with whom he now resides; he prays that the court declare the Mexican divorce and the Texas marriage void.
The first wife filed a motion and petition with the court asking that she be made a party defendant. She alleges that she is the lawful wife of the husband and that she was not made a party to the Mexican divorce proceeding and has not submitted herself to the jurisdiction of that court. She asserts that she has an interest in the matter in controversy.
The judge of the lower court issued his order making the first wife a party to the suit, and permitting her to file 'a tort action or libel based on the published allegations' of the second wife's complaint, which charged the first wife with adultery.
The second wife has appealed, alleging error, 1st, in permitting the first wife to intervene, and 2nd, in permitting the first wife to file a cross action or counterclaim in tort.
The second wife's action is brought under the South Carolina divorce law, Section 20--101 to Section 20--148. In one of the husband's defenses there is involved the law of Sections 20--41 and 20--42, which read as follows:
'Jurisdiction to determine validity of marriage.--The court of common pleas shall have authority to hear and determine any issue affecting the validity of a contract of marriage.'
'Affirmation of marriage if validity doubted.--When the validity of a marriage shall be denied or doubted by either of the parties, the other may institute a suit for affirming the marriage and, upon due proof of the validity thereof, it shall be decreed to be valid and such decree shall be conclusive upon all persons concerned.'
We think that the judge properly exercised the discretion permitted him in making the first wife a party to this litigation.
Code Section 10--203 provides:
'Who may be defendants.--Any person may be made a defendant who has or claims and interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Glenn v. School Dist. No. Five of Anderson County, 1102
-
Harmon v. Harmon
...affirmed, holding that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in making the first wife a party to the action. Ex parte Harmon, 256 S.C. 328, 182 S.E.2d 300. The appellant, on February 24, 1971, served notice upon the respondents that she would move for a nonsuit in this action, p......