Holloway v. Holloway

• Decision Date: 08 June 1944
• Docket Number: 15654.
• Parties: HOLLOWAY v. HOLLOWAY et ux.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

30 S.E.2d 596

204 S.C. 565

HOLLOWAY v. HOLLOWAY et ux.

No. 15654.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 8, 1944

Paul M. Macmillan, of Charleston, for appellants.

Augustine T. Smythe, of Charleston, for respondent.

STUKES Justice.

This appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, on which account the latter is here set forth in full, omitting prayer:

"1. On December 10, 1941, Plaintiff was married to Dr Charles T. Holloway who is the son of the Defendants. After a wedding trip of two weeks, the said Dr. Charles T. Holloway took Plaintiff to live with his parents, the Defendants, in their home at No. 66 Cannon Street, in the City of Charleston, South Carolina.

2. Prior to his marriage to Plaintiff and during the wedding trip up to the time of his taking Plaintiff to live with his parents, the said Dr. Charles T. Holloway was very affectionate towards Plaintiff and very attentive to her and Plaintiff had every reason to anticipate a happy married life with him.

3. Immediately upon Plaintiff going to live with the said Dr Charles T. Holloway in the home of his parents, the said parents, the Defendants herein, adopted an attitude highly antagonistic to Plaintiff, continually found fault with her and with what she did, continually criticized her to the said Dr. Charles T. Holloway and belittled her in such criticisms and continually pointed out to the said Dr. Charles T Holloway that he had made a mistake in marrying Plaintiff and expressed their regret that he had done so.

4. The conduct of Defendants, particularly of the Defendant Lillie Ruby Holloway, towards Plaintiff was such that Plaintiff found it impossible to remain longer in the same home with the Defendants. The said Dr. Charles T. Holloway by reason of the influence exerted upon him by his parents, refused to provide Plaintiff with a separate home which he had promised to do.

5. By reason of the conduct of the Defendants towards Plaintiff, she found it necessary to leave their home and said Dr. Charles T. Holloway refused to go with her or to furnish her with a separate home. Plaintiff thereupon, brought action against the said Dr. Charles T. Holloway in the Domestic Relations Court for Charleston County for support, on the ground that the conduct of his mother was such that she could not remain in the home, and such support was granted to her and such action on the part of the Domestic Relations Court of Charleston County was affirmed by the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

6. The conduct of Defendants as hereinabove set forth was wilful, wanton and malicious, and was intended to and did operate to alienate the affections of the said Dr. Charles T. Holloway, the husband of Plaintiff, from Plaintiff so that his attitude towards her changed from that of affection and attention to disregard and hostility and for these reasons her married life has been broken up and she is now living apart from her husband.

7. By reason of the actions of Defendants as hereinabove set forth, Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars."

The former decision of this Court, which is referred to, was reported under the title of Holloway v. Holloway, in 203 S.C. 339, 27 S.E.2d 457, to which reference may be had.

Appellants' demurrer was upon the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for two reasons, to wit, (1) that there is failure, quoting, "to allege any causal connection between the conduct of the defendants and the injury complained of," and (2) that, quoting, "it appears on the face of the complaint that the injury complained of by plaintiff was caused by her own voluntary action." In a formal order the Circuit Judge overruled the demurrer, saying only that, taking the allegations of the complaint to be all true (necessary on demurrer), a cause of action was stated.

...