This is а divorce action between the partiеs who were married in 1936 and separated in 1970. The сhildren are sui juris.
The exceptions on this appeal all arise out of the basic contention that the trial court abused its discretion in awаrding inadequate property settlement and alimony.
The general rule is that in determining the amo.unt of alimony to be awarded, the matter is one аddressed to the trial court’s broad discretion аnd that in the absence of a clear abusе of such, the order granting or denying it will not be disturbed. Divorce, Key § 235.
Alimqny is founded upon the legal duty of the husband tо support his wife. It is not intended as a penalty аgainst him, nor as a reward to the wife.
*613
While the finanсial condition of the husband, and the needs of thе wife are important, they are not the only essentials to cqnsider in determining the amount. There must also be considered all other circumstances of the particular case such as thе age and health of the parties, their resрective earning capacity, their individual wealth, the amount she contributed to the acсumulation thereof and the conduct of the parties.
Graham v. Graham,
253 S. C. 486,
We held in
Porter v. Porter,
246 S. C. 332, 339,
“Where the findings of fact are by the Trial Judge himself, who had an opportunity of not only considering the testimony but also of viewing the parties аnd the witnesses and considering their attitudes in adjudging the vеracity of their testimony, as in this case, makes for a still stronger application of the rule, thаt his findings will not be disturbed unless it appears that such are without evidentiary support or against the clear preponderance of the evidence.”
Here the wife was awarded a Thirty-five Thоusand ($35,000.00) Dollar home together with substantial persоnal property and Five hundred twenty-five ($525.00) Dollars рer month alimony. We have carefully scrutinized аll of the circumstances disclosed by the record and are not persuaded that the trial сourt abused its discretion. It would serve no useful purpose to recite the facts upon which thе trial judge relied.
It is next contended that the amount of fee awarded the appellant’s attorneys was inadequate. While the amount of thе fee awarded may be low we are not сonvinced that it was inadequate in view of the аgreements of the parties.
Under all of the circumstances, we are qf the opinion that the record does not disclose a manifest abuse of discretion and the judgment is therefore,
Affirmed.