Wolfe v. Wolfe, 16572
| Decision Date | 06 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 16572,16572 |
| Citation | 68 S.E.2d 348,220 S.C. 437 |
| Parties | WOLFE v. WOLFE. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Hydrick & Hydrick, Orangeburg, for appellant.
L. Marion Gressette, St. Matthews, for respondent.
This action was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Calhoun County by Carl F. Wolfe, the husband, against Mildred W. Wolfe, the wife, for a divorce on the ground of desertion, and for the custody of their two minor children, of the ages of five years and three years at the time (April 25, 1951) the order appealed from was signed and filed.
The answer of the wife (appellant here) denied the charges of desertion, and therefore the right of the husband (respondent here) to a divorce; and asks that she he awarded the custody of the children, counsel fees, and support for herself and the children.
The pleadings are not set out in the record, but we learn the foregoing thereabout from the Report of the Special Referee and from the order of Judge Lewis. We also learn from the Report of the Special Referee that on October 21, 1949, by order issued out of the Court of Common Pleas, the case was referred to Honorable W. R. Symmes as Special Referee to take the testimony and report the same to said Court, with his conclusions and recommendations.
The Special Referee held references at which all testimony offered by the litigants was taken, and this testimony, with his conclusions and recommendations, was transmitted to the Common Pleas Court. He found as a fact that the defendant-appellant did desert her husband, and that she and the children were being given the necessaries of life according to their station in life so long as they resided in the home provided for them by the plaintif-respondent; and he further found as a fact, though expressed as an opinion, 'that the children can be cared for wholesomely and sufficiently in the home of the plaintiff (respondent),' and recommended that he be given the custody of the children, but that the Court provide for the defendant-appellant to have the possession of the children at stated intervals during the year. He also recommended that the bonds of matrimony be dissolved between the respondent and the appellant, that alimony, during the pendency of the action, be denied, and that counsel fees for the appellant's attorneys not be adjudged against the plaintiff-respondent.
Upon appeal from the Referee's Report, Judge Lewis issued an order dated April 25, 1951, which to all practical purposes confirms the Report of the Referee.
The testimony discloses that the home provided for the appellant by the respondent was in the home of his mother and father, where also residing therein was another brother and his wife, and an unmarried brother, and that respondent and the appellant with their two children occupied only one room in this home. We can easily appreciate that such conditions were most unfavorable to a pleasant life and probably caused dissatisfaction on the part of the appellant. However, apparently the respondent made a bona fide offer to the appellant that if she would return to him he would build for her a home separate and apart from the home of his parents, but in the same community. However, she refused to return to him unless he would procure a home at either one of two other places designated by her. (Apparently from the order of Judge Lewis, when he talked to the appellant she refused to return to live with the respondent in any event.) Of course, under the settled law of this State, the husband has the right, acting reasonably, to choose where the family shall reside, and when the wife refuses to go with him, she is guilty of desertion. See State v. Bagwell, 125 S.C. 401, 118 S.E. 767; Holloway v. Holloway, 203 S.C. 339, 27 S.E.2d 457, and the cases therein cited.
On the issue raised by this appeal, whether 'the facts under the pleadings support a decree of divorce at the instance of the plaintiff ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Jenkins
...benefits and the percentage awarded to Wife was incorrect. In addition, Wife asserts the family court's reliance on Wolfe v. Wolfe, 220 S.C. 437, 68 S.E.2d 348 (1951), was a violation of her equal protection rights because that decision relies on outdated views regarding women. Wife also cl......
-
Moore v. Moore, 17594
...of the care of its mother. Poliakoff v. Poliakoff, 221 S.C. 391, 70 S.E.2d 625 (there the child was six years old). Wolfe v. Wolfe, 220 S.C. 437, 38 S.E.2d 348 (two children, ages three and five The foregoing makes unnecessary any consideration by this court of the first question argued by ......
-
State v. Collins
...reasonably, to choose where the family shall reside, and when the wife refuses to go with him she is guilty of desertion. Wolfe v. Wolfe, 220 S.C. 437, 68 S.E.2d 348, and Oswald v. Oswald, 230 S.C. 299, 95 S.E.2d 493. However, the wife is not required to live in a home chosen by the husband......
-
Ex parte Atkinson
...at least equal, the custody of a child so young as this will be entrusted to the mother. 17A Am.Jur., 14, Sec. 819; Wolfe v. Wolfe, supra, 220 S.C. 437, 68 S.E.2d 348; and Poliakoff v. Poliakoff, supra, 221 S.C. 391, 70 S.E.2d In 17A Am.Jur., Divorce and Separation, section 819, at page 14,......