Forester v. Forester, No. 16937

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtSTUKES; BAKER
Citation226 S.C. 311,85 S.E.2d 187
PartiesElizabeth B. FORESTER, Respondent, v. W. Eugene FORESTER, Appellant.
Decision Date07 December 1954
Docket NumberNo. 16937

Page 187

85 S.E.2d 187
226 S.C. 311
Elizabeth B. FORESTER, Respondent,
v.
W. Eugene FORESTER, Appellant.
No. 16937.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec. 7, 1954.

[226 S.C. 312] McEachin, Townsend & Zeigler, Florence, for appellant.

Willcox, Hardee, Houck & Palmer, Florence, for respondent.

STUKES, Justice.

Appellant and respondent were married in 1948 and lived together until about April 12, 1953. At the time of the commencement of this action in August, 1953, by the wife for separate maintenance, their two children were about four [226 S.C. 313] years and one year of age. Appellant is a merchant in Hemingway but the family lived in nearby Lake City. When he came home from the store on a Saturday night there was an argument between him and his wife, the respondent, which was a continuation of his long-standing insistence that she change her physician. The record is clear that he was jealous of her young doctor and objected to the personal examinations which she underwent at his hands.

By prearrangement the family went on the next day, which was Sunday, to visit respondent's parents at their home in Columbia. Appellant remained until Monday morning, when he returned to his business and left his family in Columbia for a further visit. By telephone call to respondent a few days later he learned from her that she intended to remain away, and visit her sister in Norfolk, Virginia. During the next week she returned to their Lake City home for clothing for herself and her children and appellant found her there and was told by her that she did not intend to live with him any longer. He tried then and later, by personal calls and letters, to induce her to return, but she was adamant. These solicitations, which carry the conviction of sincerity, were several times repeated during the trial under review.

The matter was first heard by the court on respondent's motion for temporary alimony and both parties testified at length. At the conclusion of respondent's testimony she was questioned by the court, and answered as follows:

'Q. I gather from what you have testified to so far that you have been very specific and methodic in your statements you would not consider living with him again, re-establishing your home with him and that your reasons for that are that he has what you call an uncontrollable temper, and that he has accused you of having an affair with another man, and that he has been

Page 188

unduly severe, according to you, in the disciplining of the children--are those your reasons for your refusing to go back to him? A. Yes, sir.

[226 S.C. 314] 'Q. Any other reasons? A. I believe those are the ones. There might be some minor reasons.'

Temporary alimony and suit money were awarded by the court; and the case was heard on the merits, without reference, a few months later and in her testimony at that time respondent added grounds for separation which were not included in her complaint or referred to in her testimony at the first hearing. They were in effect that appellant insisted upon sexual relations too close in time to the birth of her children; but it was not claimed that he used compulsive force to obtain her submission, or that injury resulted.

The proof is patently insufficient to justify...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Lewis v. Lewis, No. 26973.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 9, 2011
    ...in the trial court's findings of fact. See Crowder v. Crowder, 246 S.C. 299, 301, 143 S.E.2d 580, 581 (1965) (citing Forester v. Forester, 226 S.C. 311, 85 S.E.2d 187 (1954)) (“It is now well settled that this court has jurisdiction in appeals in equity cases to find the facts in accord wit......
  • Simonds v. Simonds, No. 17370
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 18, 1957
    ...of the evidence is against the finding of the Circuit Court. Finley v. Cartwright, 55 S.C. 198, 33 S.E. 359; Forester v. Forester, 226 S.C. 311, 85 S.E.2d As is hereinbefore stated, we reach the conclusion that the wife has failed to prove that her husband has refused to furnish her reasona......
  • Rutherford v. Rutherford, No. 23576
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 21, 1991
    ...cases, including domestic actions since Finley. See, e.g., Miller v. Miller, 299 S.C. 307, 384 S.E.2d 715 (1989); Forester v. Forester, 226 S.C. 311, 85 S.E.2d 187 (1954); Wise v. Wise, 60 S.C. 426, 38 S.E. 794 In 1983, § 14-3-320 was enacted. This provision provides: [307 S.C. 204] The Sup......
  • Inabinet v. Inabinet, No. 17617
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 24, 1960
    ...v. Holloway, 203 S.C. 339, 27 S.E.2d 457. Her obligation to be tolerant, within reason, of his shortcomings, cf. Forester v. Forester, 226 S.C. 311, 85 S.E.2d 187, is one thing; her right to freedom from ill-treatment, nagging, and unwarranted interference on the part of his parents, is [23......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Lewis v. Lewis, No. 26973.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 9, 2011
    ...in the trial court's findings of fact. See Crowder v. Crowder, 246 S.C. 299, 301, 143 S.E.2d 580, 581 (1965) (citing Forester v. Forester, 226 S.C. 311, 85 S.E.2d 187 (1954)) (“It is now well settled that this court has jurisdiction in appeals in equity cases to find the facts in accord wit......
  • Simonds v. Simonds, No. 17370
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 18, 1957
    ...of the evidence is against the finding of the Circuit Court. Finley v. Cartwright, 55 S.C. 198, 33 S.E. 359; Forester v. Forester, 226 S.C. 311, 85 S.E.2d As is hereinbefore stated, we reach the conclusion that the wife has failed to prove that her husband has refused to furnish her reasona......
  • Rutherford v. Rutherford, No. 23576
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 21, 1991
    ...cases, including domestic actions since Finley. See, e.g., Miller v. Miller, 299 S.C. 307, 384 S.E.2d 715 (1989); Forester v. Forester, 226 S.C. 311, 85 S.E.2d 187 (1954); Wise v. Wise, 60 S.C. 426, 38 S.E. 794 In 1983, § 14-3-320 was enacted. This provision provides: [307 S.C. 204] The Sup......
  • Inabinet v. Inabinet, No. 17617
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 24, 1960
    ...v. Holloway, 203 S.C. 339, 27 S.E.2d 457. Her obligation to be tolerant, within reason, of his shortcomings, cf. Forester v. Forester, 226 S.C. 311, 85 S.E.2d 187, is one thing; her right to freedom from ill-treatment, nagging, and unwarranted interference on the part of his parents, is [23......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT