Greenfield's Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 21 April 1965
• Docket Number: No. 18338,18338
• Citation: 245 S.C. 595,141 S.E.2d 916
• Parties: In re ESTATE of Dewey D. GREENFIELD. Louise S. GREENFIELD, Temporary Administratrix, Respondent, v. Albert G. GREENFIELD, James Greenfield and Beatrice Greenfield Sorock, Individually and as Officers, Directors and/or Stockholders of Named Corporations, Appellants.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 916

141 S.E.2d 916

245 S.C. 595

In re ESTATE of Dewey D. GREENFIELD Louise S. GREENFIELD, Temporary Administratrix, Respondent, v. Albert G. GREENFIELD, James Greenfield and Beatrice Greenfield Sorock, Individually and as Officers Directors and/or Stockholders of Named Corporations, Appellants.

No. 18338.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 21, 1965.

Grier, McDonald, Todd, Burns & Bradford, James D. Jefferies, Greenwood, for appellants.

Hinson & Hamer, Greenville, Tinsley & McGowan, Greenwood, for respondent.

LEGGE, Acting Justice:

Dewey D. Greenfield, a resident of Greenwood County, died on January 23 1963, and thereafter the respondent, as his widow, filed in the Probate Court for that county her petition alleging his death intestate and praying that she be appointed administratrix of his estate. In response to the petition and the citation issued thereon the appellants appeared, denying that she was the lawful widow, and opposing her appointment as administratrix. After a lengthy hearing, the Judge of Probate issued his decree adjudging that respondent was the common-law wife and widow of the decedent and appointing her administratrix. Upon appeal to the Circuit Court that decree was affirmed by decree of the Honorable T. B. Greneker, Presiding Judge; and the present appeal followed.

The exceptions raise two issues, as follows:

1. Was the evidence sufficient to support the holding that a common-law marriage existed?

2. Did the Circuit Judge err in considering the testimony of the respondent's witness Mrs. Janie McHenry?

Dewey D. Greenfield, generally known as 'Duke', had resided in Greenwood County for some twenty years immediately prior to his death. He and certain members of his family operated the Greenwood Manufacturing Company and other affiliated corporations, the plant and offices being in the City of Greenwood. He was of Jewish faith. His home was a fine one, on the Greenwood-Laurens Highway, with spacious grounds and gardens, overlooking Lake Greenwood. About ten years before his death the respondent, then Louise Sexton, a Gentile girl who had theretofore lived with her parents in Greenwood, where her father was engaged in business, and who at one time had been employed in one of the Greenfield enterprises, moved into Duke Greenfield's home; and there they lived together, openly and continuously, until his death.

The record contains not the least hint of previous unchastity on her part. The testimony on both sides shows conclusively that during their life together she carried out with fidelity and devotion the usual duties and responsibilities of a wife, and that in their home and out of it their deportment did not in the slightest degree suggest an immoral or illegal relationship, but on the contrary was such as would be expected of a normal and happy married couple. They occupied the same bedroom and slept in the same double bed. She bought the groceries, managed the servants, drove him to and from his work, arranged their meals, and cared for him in sickness and in health. Their photographs stood on the mantel in their living room; the sign in their driveway read: 'Greenfields-Private'. They entertained in their home many prominent and respected married couples of Greenwood; in turn they were entertained in the homes of their married friends. But appellants contend that these outward and visible signs are belied and overthrown: (1) by the fact that in all business transactions Louise used her maiden name, and that in her application for employment in 1961 at Greenwood Mills and for that company's withholding tax records and social security information she gave her name as Louise Sexton and stated that she was single; and (2) by Duke's statements, made in the presence of several witnesses, to the effect that he and Louise were not married and that he had no wife.

In evaluating the impact of such inconsistency between conduct and statement upon the issue here involved, consideration must be given to the probability that Louise (who did not testify) felt, as at least one of appellants' witnesses did, that her marriage was not legal because there had been no marriage ceremony, and to the fact that Duke, who was many years her senior and obviously the dominant partner, had a strange obsession concerning his surname.

Duke Greenfield is revealed by the evidence as a man well-educated, well-read, successful in business, and of interesting and attractive personality in the companionship of his friends, but obsessed with the idea that there persisted in this country a caste system under which all Jews were discriminated against. He felt that the name 'Greenfield' marked one as a Jew and was therefore to be avoided, especially in business matters,--a feeling apparently shared by his unmarried sister Sadie, who in her part in the family business operations used the name 'Sadie Green', and by his brother Joseph, who went under the name of 'Joe Fields'. The testimony of Mr. Donald McKellar, a close friend of Duke and Louise Greenfield for many years, describes quite clearly Duke's feeling on the matter of anti-Semitism, and his view concerning his marital status. We quote at some length from Mr. McKellar's account of a discussion with Duke in the latter's home:

'* * * He was discussing the caste system and said he knew it was there and I knew it was there. He said 'I can't join country clubs because I am a Jew; I can't do this and I can't do that.' * * * I felt this was a good time to approach the subject. I said 'Duke, it is not because you are a Jew that you are not accepted, if you think you are not, but it is because you are living with a woman you are not married to. I know it is none of my business, and you can have me shut up if you want to, but I am fond of you, and I don't want you to think ill of me to pry into your private affairs.' * * * Duke said 'It is exactly right. It is none of your business.' He said it very vehemently. I said 'Well, I know it isn't, but will you let me continue, and then I will shut up and never bring it up again?' He said 'Yes, go ahead.' I said 'In a community the size of Greenwood particularly there is a moral code that we have to live by, or we will not be accepted in that society. I have been out here a long time and I have seen you and Louise and I know that you love her and I know that she loves you. I think you are being dreadfully unfair to her by not going through a civil ceremony.' He said 'How do you know that I haven't? How does anybody in town know whether we have or not? It is none of their damn business.' I said 'You are right. It isn't. That makes me feel a little better because I consider you as man and wife.' And he said 'Another point, you know, in South Carolina there is a law that says after a man and woman live together seven years, (evidently he knew what he was talking about--I have no idea myself about the law), you are considered a common law marriage.' I said 'Duke, do you consider Louise as your wife?' He said 'Absolutely I do.' He said 'It is nobody else's business whether she is my common law wife, my wife by ceremony, or what not. If all of us delved into the private lives of everybody in Greenwood, you would really be amazed at what you dug out.' I said 'You are absolutely true.' I said then 'There is another law. I didn't know how old you are, but I do know how old Louise is (because her birthday happened to be several days from mine; around June 12th Duke had a birthday party for us. I knew she was a year older than I.)' I said 'You are a great deal older than Louise. Suppose you were to kick the bucket. You would be leaving her in a pretty bad situation.' He said ...