Inabinet v. Inabinet, 17617

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Citation236 S.C. 52,113 S.E.2d 66
Decision Date24 February 1960
Docket NumberNo. 17617,17617
PartiesWesley N. INABINET, Appellant, v. Rosezenna Walker INABINET, Respondent.

D. Marchant Culler, Orangeburg, for appellant.

Marshall B. Williams, Orangeburg, for respondent.

LEGGE, Justice.

Wesley N. Inabinet brought this action in the Orangeburg County Court for divorce from his wife, Rosezenna, upon the ground of desertion. Answering his complaint, she denied that she had deserted him and, by way of counterclaim, sought a decree for separate maintenance of herself and their minor child upon the ground, among others, that he had failed and refused to provide a home for them. He appeals from a decree dismissing the complaint and ordering him to pay to her a certain sum each month. His exceptions charge that the trial court's conclusions were contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Both parties are schoolteachers. At the time of their marriage in December, 1947, Wesley was teaching in Berkeley County, where he has continued to teach ever since; Rosezenna was teching in Hampton County any she continued to teach there for about two years. On week-ends and in summer vacation during that period they lived in the home of his parents in Orangeburg County. During part or all of the school session of 1950-1951 she taught in Berkeley County and they lived together in a boardinghouse. When the session ended in June, 1951, they returned to his parents' home; and there they remained until September of that year, when she went, just before her baby was born, two her mother's home, also in Orangeburg County. It appears from her testimony that her life in the home of his parents was unhappy, primarily because of his mother's evident dislike for her, and also because his father would sometimes get violently drunk; and that she had tried, without success, to get him to establish a home of their own. It appears also that she did not look with favor upon his interest in and association with another woman, who also taught in the Berkeley County school, and who, although having a home in Rock Hill, rented a small house in Orangeburg, where he frequently visited her.

This unhappy situation appears to have reached a climax in the latter part of December, 1951, when Rosezenna went to see Wesley in Moncks Corner and to insist that he provide quarters there after the Christmas holidays so that she and the baby could come and live with him. She testified that this request evoked no response, and that when he returned at the end of that week to his parents' home his mother upbraided her in his presence for having gone to see him in Moncks Corner, saying that he had no need of a wife, and that he had to have another woman in his life,--to which statement he interposed no objection. Shortly thereafter, Rosezennan left wih her baby and went to Stamford, Connecticut, where she had relatives. As to the circumstances of her going, the evidence is conflicting. It is not disputed that about January 1, 1952, Wesley and his father took her and the baby by automobile to her sister's home in Orangeburg, and left them there. Wesley and his father testified that they understood that she was to visit her sister for a week or so; she testified that she had refused to live any longer in his parents' home, and that they knew that she was leaving that abode permanently. At all events, after staying with her sister for a few days, she went to Connecticut, found employment, and remained there for two years, when she returned to Orangeburg and taught for a year in the public school at Pineville. At the end of that year the Pineville school was closed as the result of consolidation of school districts; and it appears that she has been unemployed ever since, despite her efforts to find work as a schoolteacher. According to her testimony, she came back to Orangeburg in the summer of 1953 and proposed to Wesley that they rent an apartment, which he refused to do.

Appellant concedes that, except for a room in his parents' home and access to the rest of that house, he has never provided a home for his wife and child. According to his testimony and that of his parents and his aunt, peace and contentment reigned in that house. He insists that, although his wife complained of it, there was nothing improper in his association with another woman. He does not suggest that his means were insufficient to provide for his family a home of their own

Further discussion of the evidence is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Lewis v. Lewis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 9 May 2011
    ...such cases when the appellant satisfies this court that the finding is against the preponderance of the evidence.”); Inabinet v. Inabinet, 236 S.C. 52, 55–56, 113 S.E.2d 66, 67 (1960) (citing Twitty v. Harrison, 230 S.C. 174, 94 S.E.2d 879 (1956)) (“Our duty in equity cases to review challe......
  • Theisen v. Theisen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 19 September 2011 may judge, the alienation of the parties is complete, and a resumption of cohabitation would be intolerable”); Inabinet v. Inabinet, 236 S.C. 52, 56, 113 S.E.2d 66, 68 (1960) (stating in the context of separate maintenance that “[i]t is the duty of a husband to provide for his wife, in ......
  • Perry v. Estate of Perry, 2534
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 8 July 1996 relieve appellant of the burden of convincing this court that the trial judge erred in his findings of fact. Inabinet v. Inabinet, 236 S.C. 52, 55-56, 113 S.E.2d 66, 67 (1960). We conclude the family court did not commit error by accepting the Wife's original valuation of her personal pr......
  • Wallace v. Milliken & Co., 1448
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 5 December 1989
    ...the appellant bears the burden of convincing the reviewing court that the trial judge erred in his findings of fact. Inabinet v. Inabinet, 236 S.C. 52, 113 S.E.2d 66 (1960). For a claimant to prevail in a retaliatory discharge action brought under Section 41-1-80, the claimant must prove by......
  • 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