Jackson v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 18 July 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 17944,17944 |
| Citation | Jackson v. Jackson, 241 S.C. 1, 126 S.E.2d 855 (S.C. 1962) |
| Parties | Carol JACKSON, Respondent, v. Robert L. JACKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Harvey & Harvey, Beaufort, for appellant.
Keith M. Kinard, Walterboro, for respondent.
Defendant in an action for divorce appeals from a circuit court order adjudging him in contempt for his failure to obey a previous order directing him to deliver the infant daughter of the parties into the temporary custody of its maternal grandparents.
In the divorce action Judge Bussey issued, on March 21, 1961, an ex parte order awarding the custody of the child during the pendency of the action to the plaintiff, its mother, and directing the defendant to place the child in plaintiff's custody forthwith. On March 30, this order, together with the summons and complaint, were served upon the defendant at the United States Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort, South Carolina, where he was stationed. On the same day, March 30, 1961, upon the plaintiff's petition, Judge Bussey issued his order directing the defendant to show cause before him on April 3, 1961, why he should not be adjudged in contempt for having failed to deliver the child into plaintiff's custody. At the hearing on April 3, 1961, the defendant did not appear in person, but was represented by counsel; and as the result of the hearing Judge Bussey issued his order dated April 3, 1961, ordering the defendant to deliver the child, within ten days, into the custody of the plaintiff's parents pending the further order of the court. On April 21, 1961, the defendant having failed to comply with the order of April 3, Judge Bussey issued an order requiring him to appear in person before the Honorable William L. Rhodes, Jr., Resident Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, on April 25, 1961, to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt therefor. From Judge Rhodes' order adjudging him in contempt and sentencing him to imprisonment in the Beaufort County jail for a period of ten days unless he should sooner purge himself of contempt by delivery of the child in accordance with Judge Bussey's order of April 3, 1961, this appeal is taken.
At the hearing before Judge Rhodes appellant was present in person with his attorney, the Honorable W. Brantley Harvey, of the Beaufort bar. Respondent was represented by Mr. Keith M. Kinard, of the Walterboro bar. No oral testimony was offered, but a written return to the order to show cause was submitted to the court by appellant's counsel, together with certain exhibits, which, without objection, were admitted into the record. To these documents we shall now refer.
Appellant's return alleged in substance:
That he is and was at the time of his marriage to the respondent a citizen of Illinois, his presence in South Carolina for the past three years being as a member of the United States Marine Corps;
That during said three-year period he lived in barracks at the Marine Corps Air Station until his marriage; after hus marriage they lived for some three months in Beaufort with her parents; and thereafter he lived at the Air Station, where he had quarters for himself and her;
That prior to the institution by respondent of the action for divorce, he and she had on numerous occasions discussed the matter of their divorce and had agreed that he was to have custody of the child and she was to be given a sum of money to enable her to study cosmetology;
That about March 1, 1961, respondent rented an apartment outside of the Air Station, and on March 17 she began to move her personal possessions there, for that purpose borrowing appellant's automobile and leaving the child at the home of a neighbor;
That on the morning of March 18, respondent having nor returned to the neighbor's home to get the child, and having conducted herself improperly during the previous evening, appellant decided to apply for leave and take the child to his mother's home in Illinois, which he did;
That after his return to Beaufort from this trip he was served with the summons and complaint and a petition and order in the divorce action, the order (dated March 21) directing him to place the child in respondent's custody forthwith, which he was unable to do because the child was in Illinois;
That later, by order dated March 30, he was directed to show cause before Judge Bussey on April 3 why he should not be adjudged in contempt for having failed to obey the order of March 21;
That upon the return day, April 3, appellant's counsel appeared before Judge Bussey, and as the result of the hearing Judge Bussey issued his order dated April 3, 1961, directing appellant to deliver the child to respondent's parents within ten days.
The remainder of the return we quote verbatim:
'Wherefore, this defendant having shown that the infant, Theresa Sue Jackson, was legally domiciled in the State of Illinois at and before the commencement of this action, and that it is beyond the power of the defendant to obey the order of the court, and it further appearing that the court was without jurisdiction to issue the order directing that this defendant deliver the infant, Theresa Sue Jackson, to Mr. and Mrs. Frank Canene, this defendant prays that the citation and contempt be discharged and the defendant exonerated of any contempt.'
Attached to the return were the follwing:
1. A statement by Major Waller to the effect that because of a shortage of available military personnel he would not grant leave to Sergeant Robert L. Jackson to go to Illinois or elsewhere beyond the local liberty area after April 1, 1961.
2. A letter, sent on April 8, 1961, by Mrs. Ruby L. Jackson to Mr. Felix B. Greene, Jr., then attorney for the appellant, enclosing a doctor's certificate to the effect that the child had been exposed to measles and should not travel before April 15. In this letter Mrs. Jackson requests that Mr. Greene try to have the hearing set for either April 20 or April 24, and states: 'I will guarantee that the child and I will be there.'
The exhibits offered by appellant at the hearing before Judge Rhodes were:
1. The following letter, dated April 18, 1961, from Mr. Felix B. Greene, Jr., then appellant's counsel, to Mr. Keith M. Kinard, respondent's counsel, showing copy sent to Judge Bussey:
'Dear Mr. Kinard:
'Very truly yours,
'Felix B. Greene, Jr.'
2. An exemplified...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Green v. Green
...Wilson v. Wilson, 66 Nev. 405, 414--419, 212 P.2d 1066; Wallace v. Wallace, 63 N.M. 414, 419--420, 320 P.2d 1020; Jackson v. Jackson, 241 S.C. 1, 9--14, 126 S.E.2d 855. See Restatement 2d: Conflict of Laws (Tent. draft No. 1, May 1, 1953), § 117; Scoles, Goodrich's Conflict of Laws 4th ed.)......
-
Skipper, In re, 176
...duty to act. G.S. § 17-39.1. In Re Hughes, 254 N.C. 434, 119 S.E.2d 189; Gafford v. Phelps, 235 N.C. 218, 69 S.E.2d 313; Jackson v. Jackson, 241 S.C. 1, 126 S.E.2d 855. Parents are under a legal obligation to support their children. Primarily, this obligation rests on the father. Goodyear v......
-
Gramelspacher v. Gramelspacher
...17A Am. Jur., Divorce and Separation, § 811, p. 8 ff.; 27B C.J.S., Divorce, § 303-b, p. 427 ff.; Anno: 4 A.L.R.2d 7; Jackson v. Jackson, 241 S.C. 1, 126 S.E.2d 855, 860. Some courts hold that a child must have a domicide within the state in order that a divorce court may gain jurisdiction t......
-
State v. Bevilacqua
...the acts, words and circumstances surrounding the occurrence. State v. Bowers, 270 S.C. 124, 241 S.E.2d 409 (1978); Jackson v. Jackson, 241 S.C. 1, 126 S.E.2d 855 (1962); 17 Am.Jur.2d Contempt § 36 Although, the Department may have used poor judgment in the manner in which it pursued the em......
-
Chapter Six Alimony
...669 (1982). A determination of contempt should be imposed sparingly and within sound discretion of the trial judge. Jackson v. Jackson, 241 S.C. 1, 126 S.E.2d 855 (1962). Yet, the trial court's determination is subject to reversal where it is based on a finding without evidentiary support. ......
-
Chapter Twelve Child Support
...669 (1982). A determination of contempt should be imposed sparingly and within sound discretion of the trial judge. Jackson v. Jackson, 241 S.C. 1, 126 S.E.2d 855 (1962). Yet, the trial court's determination is subject to reversal where it is based on a finding without evidentiary support. ......
-
Chapter 45 Subpoenas
...See Rule 41.1(b) Filing Documents Under Seal.[40] Milgroom v. McDaniel, 308 S.C. 5, 416 S.E.2d 626 (1992); Jackson v. Jackson, 241 S.C. 1, 126 S.E.2d 855 (1962).[41] 9A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller et al, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2465 (3rd ed. 2008).[42] Id. See also Rule 37......