Sadler v. Sadler

105 S.E. 285, 115 S.C. 217, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 205
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedDecember 20, 1920
Docket10554
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 S.E. 285 (Sadler v. Sadler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sadler v. Sadler, 105 S.E. 285, 115 S.C. 217, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 205 (S.C. 1920).

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cheatham v. Cheatham
141 S.E.2d 813 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1965)
Nienow v. Nienow
141 S.E.2d 648 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1965)
Leysath v. Leysath
125 S.E. 737 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 S.E. 285, 115 S.C. 217, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadler-v-sadler-sc-1920.