Odom v. Odom, 18527
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 248 S.C. 144,149 S.E.2d 353 |
| Decision Date | 05 July 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 18527,18527 |
| Parties | Frances Ruth ODOM, Respondent, v. Edwin M. ODOM, Appellant. |
Earle, Bozeman & Grayson, Greenville, for appellant.
Paul K. Rogers, Anderson, for respondent.
This action was instituted in the County Court of Anderson County by Frances Ruth Odom, the respondent herein, seeking a divorce A vinculo matrimonii and allied relief, against Edwin M. Odom, the appellant herein, on the ground of adultery. Section 20--101(1) of the Code. The answer of the appellant was a general denial.
The case was heard by The Honorable Ernest B. Castles, Judge of the Anderson County Court. After hearing the testimony he issued a decree, without any findings of fact, granting the respondent a divorce A vinculo matrimonii from the appellant on the ground of adultery; restoring to the respondent her maiden name; and enjoining the appellant from bothering, molesting or interfering with the respondent in any manner. It is from this decree that this appeal is prosecuted.
The questions for determination are whether or not there was error on the part of the trial judge in finding that the appellant as a matter of fact, was guilty of adultery within the meaning of our divorce law, and whether he should be restrained from bothering, molesting or interfering with the respondent.
The proof of adultery as a ground for divorce must be clear and positive and the infidelity must be established by a clear preponderance of the evidence. The proof must be sufficiently definite to identify the time and place of the offense, and the circumstances under which it was committed. It is not necessary that the fact of adultery be proved by direct evidence, but it may be sufficiently proved by indirect or circumstantial evidence, or it may be proved by evidence consisting in part of both, however, if after due consideration of all the evidence proof of guilt is inconclusive, a divorce will be denied. Brown v. Brown, 215 S.C. 502, 56 S.E.2d 330, 15 A.L.R.2d 163; and Lee v. Lee, 237 S.C. 532, 118 S.E.2d 171.
It is the established law in this State that in an equity case this Court may reverse the findings of fact of a Judge of a County Court when the appellant satisfies this Court that such findings are without evidentiary support or are against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Todd v. Todd, 242 S.C. 263, 130 S.E.2d 552. Here, the trial judge made no specific findings of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McElveen v. McElveen, 2883.
...the evidence proof of guilt is inconclusive." McLaurin v. McLaurin, 294 S.C. 132, 134, 363 S.E.2d 110, 111 (1987) (quoting Odom v. Odom, 248 S.C. 144, 146, 149 S.E.2d 353, 354 While we reiterate that this is an extremely close case, we feel the circumstantial evidence presented at trial fal......
-
Whetsell v. Whetsell, 2007-UP-112
...for divorce must be clear and positive[, ] and the infidelity must be established by a clear preponderance of the evidence.” Odom v. Odom, 248 S.C. 144, 146, 149 S.E.2d 353, 354 (1966). A preponderance of the evidence” is evidence which convinces as to its truth. DuBose v. DuBose, 259 S.C. ......
-
Watson v. Watson, 0842
...has shown the wife's adultery by the requisite proof. Adultery may, and usually is, shown by circumstantial evidence. Odom v. Odom, 248 S.C. 144, 149 S.E.2d 353 (1966). Such proof must be shown by a clear preponderance of the evidence. Calcutt v. Calcutt, 282 S.C. 565, 320 S.E.2d 55 (Ct.App......
-
Calcutt v. Calcutt, 0244
...direct; it may be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence. Gainey v. Gainey, 277 S.C. 519, 290 S.E.2d 242 (1982); Odom v. Odom, 248 S.C. 144, 149 S.E.2d 353 (1966). Eyewitness evidence is not required. Brown v. Brown, 215 S.C. 502, 56 S.E.2d 330 (1949). As a general rule, the pro......