Wolfe v. Wolfe, No. 16572

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtBAKER; Upon appeal from the Referee's Report
Citation68 S.E.2d 348,220 S.C. 437
Docket NumberNo. 16572
Decision Date06 December 1951
PartiesWOLFE v. WOLFE.

Page 348

68 S.E.2d 348
220 S.C. 437
WOLFE

v.
WOLFE.
No. 16572.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec. 6, 1951.

[220 S.C. 438] Hydrick & Hydrick, Orangeburg, for appellant.

L. Marion Gressette, St. Matthews, for respondent.

BAKER, Chief Justice.

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

Page 349

Honorable W. R. Symmes as Special Referee to take the testimony and report the same to said Court, with his conclusions and recommendations.

[220 S.C. 439] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Jenkins v. Jenkins, No. 5058.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 5, 2012
    ...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, No. 17594
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 15, 1959
    ...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, No. 17547
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 26, 1959
    ...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, No. 17805
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 18, 1961
    ...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,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Jenkins v. Jenkins, No. 5058.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 5, 2012
    ...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, No. 17594
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 15, 1959
    ...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, No. 17547
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 26, 1959
    ...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, No. 17805
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 18, 1961
    ...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,......
  • 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