Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1920

Sadler v. Sadler

Sadler v. Sadler
Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided December 20, 1920 · Watts, Messrs, Hydrick, Kraser, Gary, Cage
105 S.E. 285; 115 S.C. 217; 1920 S.C. LEXIS 205 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. T.F. McDow and J.S. Brice , for appellant, cite: Temporary alimony should not be allowed unless wife will 761. In reply: Finding of fact reversible if unsupported: 55 S.C. 198 ; 60 S.C. 449 ; 68 S.C. 123 ; 113 S.C. 133 . Messrs. Gaston Hamilton , for respondent, cite: Allowance of temporary alimony and counsel fee is within discretion of Circuit Judge: 107 S.C. 99 ; 95 S.C. 130 ; 94 S.C. 11 ; 94 S.C. 204 . Wife required to show prima facie that husband has inflicted such personal indignity as makes living with him intolerable: 91 S.C. 245 . Grounds for alimony: 60 S.C. 427 ; 2 DeS. 45; 4 Des. 183. Right of wife to leave husband: 68 S.C. 123 . Relief asked is proper and fee reasonable: 84 S.C. 11 ; 91 S.C. 246 ; 94 S.C. 12 ; 91 S.C. 411 ; 73 S.C. 129 .

Sadler v. Sadler

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from an order allowing temporary alimony and suit money made by his Honor, Judge Townsend, who heard the matter on affidavits and passed an order allowing the respondent $70 per month, temporary alimony, and allowing her counsel $300 suit money. Appellant appeals, and by six exceptions, alleges error.

The exceptions allege abuse of discretion on the part of his Honor; that the amounts allowed were excessive; that under the showing made he should have refused to allow anything; that the weight of the evidence showed that the *219 respondent had ample means to support herself; and that the appellant had in spirit and in fact performed faithfully all of the duties imposed upon him by his marital obligations.

1-4 This Court has repeatedly decided that the allowance of temporary alimony and counsel fee is a matter within the discretion of the Circuit Judge, and we see no abuse of discretion on his part as to the allowance of temporary alimony. But the allowance of counsel of $300 would be excessive if it were for obtaining temporary alimony alone, but, in response to questions by the Court, respondent counsel stated that this was not for obtaining temporary alimony alone, but was to compensate them for all litigation in this matter, from its inception to the end of it, and that the appellant was not to be asked to pay any more for counsel fees in this litigation. That being the case, we will not say that it is excessive; and all exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Hydrick and Kraser concur. Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Cage absent on account of sickness.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.