Case Name: SHEARER v. SHEARER
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1919-06-23
Citations: 112 S.C. 126
Docket Number: 10202
Parties: SHEARER v. SHEARER.
Judges: Mr. Justice Watts concurs.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 126–128

Head Matter:
10202
SHEARER v. SHEARER.
(99 S. E. 754.)
Husband and Wipe — Divorce—Alimony—Counsel Fees — Discretion.— Application for temporary alimony and counsel fees is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court.
Before Wieson, J., chambers, Manning, S. C., June 6.
Affirmed.
Action brought in the Common Pleas Court, of Sumter county, for Virginia Shearer against Lee Shearer. Prom an order granting temporary alimony and attorney’s fees, defendant appeals.
Messrs. Lee & Moise, for appellant,
cite: As to the law governing the allowance of alimony: 91 S. C. 245; 10 Rich. Pq. 173; 68 S. C. 123; 100 S. C. 298.
Messrs. Cothran, Dean & Cothran, of counsel for appellant,
cite: As to the law governing the allowance of alimony: 60 S. C. 447; 91 S. C. 245; 79 S. C. 59.
Messrs. Gray don & Graydon, for respondent.
Mr. W. N. Graydon, cites: As to the law governing the allowance of alimony: 91 S. C. 245; 51 S. C. 379; 80 S. C. 277.
June 23, 1919.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This is an appeal from an order granting temporary alimony and a fee for the plaintiff's attorney. Such cases have been before the Court so often in recent years, and the principles governing them are so well established, that we do not deem it necessary to cite any authorities, other than those mentioned in the arguments of the attorneys, for the respective parties.
The application herein for temporary alimony and a counsel fee was addressed to the sound discretion of his Honor, the Circuit Judge, and the appellant's attorneys have failed to satisfy this Court that such discretion was erroneously exercised. Having reached this conclusion, we do not deem it advisable to discuss the testimony, as a discussion thereof could not subserve any useful purpose, and might have a prejudicial effect upon the rights of one or the other of the parties, when the case is heard upon the merits.
Appeal dismissed
Mr. Justice Watts concurs.
Mr. Justice Fraser did not sit.