Holloway v. Holloway

• Decision Date: 28 October 1943
• Docket Number: 15577.
• Citation: 27 S.E.2d 457,203 S.C. 339
• Parties: HOLLOWAY v. HOLLOWAY.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

27 S.E.2d 457

203 S.C. 339

HOLLOWAY v. HOLLOWAY.

No. 15577.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 28, 1943

Augustine T. Smythe and Arthur Rittenberg, both of Charleston, for appellant.

Paul M. Macmillan, of Charleston, for respondent.

E. H HENDERSON, Acting Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County, affirming a decree of the Domestic Relations Court.

The parties are husband and wife. Upon their marriage in 1941 the appellant took his wife to live at the home of his parents. Disagreement and irritation soon arose between her and her mother-in-law. The wife contends that as a result of constant nagging, interference, and even of abuse by her husband's mother, her life was made intolerable, and as her husband refused to provide her with a separate home she was obliged to leave him after six months.

The Judge of the Domestic Relations Court held that she had a right to leave, and ordered her husband to pay $18.75 a week for her support. Upon appeal to the Court of Common Pleas his Honor, Judge M. M. Mann, affirmed the decree, and overruled the additional contention there made by the appellant that the Domestic Relations Court is a county Court, and that the act establishing it is unconstitutional there being no provision for first submitting the question to the electors of Charleston County.

The exceptions before us present three questions: Did the wife have a right to leave the home provided for her by her husband without forfeiting her claim to support? Was there error in requiring the appellant to pay as much as $18.75 a week for her support? Is the act establishing the Domestic Relations Court constitutional?

The mutual rights and obligations of husbands and wives have been clearly set forth in the case of State v. Bagwell, 125 S.C. 401, 118 S.E. 767, 768:

"Marriage imposes upon the husband the duty at common law of providing the wife with a reasonably adequate and suitable home and support. *** But that the wife owes the reciprocal duty of living with the husband, who has discharged his obligation to provide her with a reasonably suitable home and support, is equally fundamental. The husband incurs no liability, either civil or criminal, for a failure or refusal to support a wife who has deserted a reasonably suitable place of abode chosen by him, or who without just cause or excuse has abandoned his bed and board.

But in the case at bar the abusive language which, appellant says, did not justify the wife in leaving the marital abode chosen by the husband, was used by the mother-in-law. The wife marries the husband, not his mother. His first and paramount obligation is to his wife. Matt. XIX:5. The duty of the wife to forsake her family and cleave to her husband is no more imperative or sacred than the corresponding duty of the husband. Neither spouse has the right in mere wantonness or caprice to demand the estrangement of the other from his or her parents. Coulter v. Coulter, 175 Mo.App. 1, 161 S.W. 281. But, certainly, the wife's marital duty to put up with coarse and abusive language from a husband, whom she has taken for better or for worse, may not be extended to cover the tongue of a cantankerous mother-in-law. As to what conduct of a husband's relatives will justify a wife in leaving the marital abode, it cannot be said that the courts have formulated a rule of general application. But as pointed out by the author of the note, appearing at page 633, Ann.Cas. 1914B: 'It may, however, be said, as the general effect of the decisions, that the duty of a husband to provide a home not only extends to the furnishing of material comforts in accordance with his means but requires the furnishing of a home wherein the wife is free from abuse, ill treatment, and unwarranted interference from members of the household. If such a home is not provided, the wife is justified in leaving, and not only is not guilty of desertion in so doing but may charge the husband with constructive desertion."'

And in the case of State v. Free, 158 S.C. 515, 155 S.E. 838, 839, it is said: "The obligation of a husband to his wife is paramount, and it is his duty to provide her a home in accordance with his means, where she may live, as the object of his care and comfort, without interference from members of the household."

It is needless to relate the facts of this unfortunate matter with any degree of detail, since the circumstances of each case of this kind necessarily differ widely. While some of the causes of irritation and annoyance, taken alone, might seem to be of a rather trivial nature, yet as is aptly said by the respondent, happiness or the opposite of it results from the accumulation of every day petty occurrences. They must be considered as a whole, rather than as isolated incidents.

It will be sufficient to say that although the appellant promised his wife a separate home, this promise was never carried out. She was perfectly willing to live with him if he did so. Although there is some conflict in the evidence, it does appear that from the very beginning she was subjected to the unwarranted interference and persistent nagging of her mother-in-law. She complained to her husband and told him of her inability to stand it; and reminded him of his promise to provide her with a separate home, which he refused to do. He did offer her an apartment in the residence, but even this was not entirely apart from the other members of the family living there. The only offer he ever made to provide a really separate home was after she had left him, and it was coupled with the provision that the members of her family should not be allowed to visit her.

It is true that in many instances the relationship of a wife and her mother-in-law in the household is most cordial and pleasant, accompanied by mutual tact and love. Unfortunately that happy relationship did not exist in the present case. A careful review of the evidence convinces us that the two Judges who have already heard this case have correctly held that by reason of the acts and words of the mother-in-law the life of the respondent became unbearable; and that they have properly applied the legal principles which govern such situations.

Taking up now the question of the amount ordered for support of the wife, it appears that the husband is a successful colored physician, and that his...