Inabinet v. Inabinet, No. 17617

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

Page 66

113 S.E.2d 66
236 S.C. 52
Wesley N. INABINET, Appellant,
v.
Rosezenna Walker INABINET, Respondent.
No. 17617.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Feb. 24, 1960.

[236 S.C. 53] 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 [236 S.C. 54] 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,

Page 67

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 [236 S.C. 55] statement he interposed no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Lewis v. Lewis, No. 26973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 9, 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, No. 27041.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 19, 2011
    ...man 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, No. 2534
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 8, 1996
    ...does it 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 We conclude the family court did not commit error by accepting the Wife's original valuation of her personal prope......
  • Wallace v. Milliken & Co., No. 1448
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 5, 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 [300 S.C. 557] For a claimant to prevail in a retaliatory discharge action brought under Section 41-1-80, the claimant must p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Lewis v. Lewis, No. 26973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 9, 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, No. 27041.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 19, 2011
    ...man 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, No. 2534
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 8, 1996
    ...does it 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 We conclude the family court did not commit error by accepting the Wife's original valuation of her personal prope......
  • Wallace v. Milliken & Co., No. 1448
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 5, 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 [300 S.C. 557] For a claimant to prevail in a retaliatory discharge action brought under Section 41-1-80, the claimant must p......
  • 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