Gordon v. Gordon
| Citation | 74 S.E. 360,91 S.C. 245 |
| Parties | GORDON v. GORDON. |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1912 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Williamsburg County; S.W G. Shipp, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Fanny O. Gordon against Samuel B. Gordon. From an order allowing temporary alimony and counsel fees, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Stoll & Stoll, for appellant. Lee & Fishburne, for respondent.
In this action brought by Fanny O. Gordon against her husband, Samuel B. Gordon, for permanent alimony and the custody of their children, Judge Shipp made an order for the payment of $25 a month as a temporary allowance to the wife for her support and of $200 as reasonable counsel fees. The defendant has appealed on the ground that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that the separation was due to her husband's misconduct, and not her own.
On the part of the wife, affidavits were introduced to the effect that the husband, actuated by unfounded suspicion and unreasonable jealousy, had driven his wife from his home. On the part of the husband there was his own affidavit that he had witnessed the unfaithfulness of his wife with one West and the affidavits of other persons of like tenor. The pleadings and these affidavits make sharp issues to be decided at the trial as to the chastity of the wife, and as to the veracity of both husband and wife. Any discussion here of these issues might tend to influence the result of the trial, and it therefore seems proper that we should go little beyond a statement of our conclusions. The allowance of temporary alimony and suit money is a mere provisional remedy-- a temporary provision for a wife living apart from her husband, because the circumstances prevent her from receiving support from him in the family home. If the wife voluntarily leaves her husband's home, as a condition of obtaining even temporary alimony and suit money, she must assume the burden of showing prima facie that her husband has inflicted on her such physical violence or personal indignity as would make her living with him as a wife intolerable. Even that showing will not entitle her to the provision if, on the whole showing from both sides, it appears prima facie that she committed adultery or violated or omitted to discharge any of the important hymeneal obligations assumed by her. Hair v. Hair, 10 Rich Eq. 173; Levin v. Levin, 68 S.C. 123, 46 S.E. 945. But...
To continue reading
Request your trial