Messrs. Savage, Royall Phillips, of Camden, and Graydon,Davis Sawyer, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to trial Judge having the authority under applicablestatutes to make a lump sum award in an action for a divorce, a mensa et thoro: 186 S.C. 93, 195 S.E. 1221; Nelson on Divorce and Annulment, Vol. 2, rev. 1961, p. 35; 134 Conn. 312, 57 A.2d 627; 346 S.W.2d 778; 230 S.W.2d 73; 343 S.W.2d 168; 329 Ill. App. 514, 69 N.E.2d 518; 336 Ill. App. 226, 83 N.E.2d 382; 76 N.E.2d 5; 254 Ala. 260, 48 So.2d 184; 104 So.2d 700; 82 So.2d 556; 39 So.2d 554; 363 P.2d 155; 102 Wis. 598, 78 N.W. 753, 33 L.R.A. 725; 54 Colo. 57, 129 P. 226, 44 L.R.A. (NS) 998; 163 P.2d 968. As to a lump sum award of $75,000 being justified bythe record in this case: 140 N.E.2d 139. As to error onpart of trial Judge in deleting the lump sum award: 157 Ohio St. 319, 105 N.E.2d 406. Messrs. Willcox, Hardee, Houck, Palmer O'Farrell, of Florence, for Respondent, cite: As to this action beingsolely one for separate maintenance and support: 17 Am.Jur. 256, Sec. 4; 27 Am. Jur. 8, Sec. 401; 93 S.E.2d 113, 229 S.C. 346; 165 S.E. 122, 168 S.C. 93; 211 Ala. 342, 100 So. 317; 66 S.E.2d 629, 220 S.C. 90; 238 Ala. 158, 189 So. 877; 121 S.E.2d 98, 238 S.C. 547. As to the Court not having the authority to make a lumpsum award in an action for separate maintenance and support: 165 S.E. 122, 168 S.C. 93; 66 S.E.2d 629; 93 S.E.2d 113, 229 S.C. 346; Nelson on Divorce and Annulment, Vol. 2, rev. 1961, p. 15. As to anaward of $500.00 per month as alimony, and a lump sum of$75,000.00 being excessive in this case and trial Judgeproperly deleted the lump sum award: 85 S.E.2d 187, 226 S.C. 311;
"Where divorce is granted wife by reason of the fault of the husband, the allowance of permanent alimony rests in the sound discretion of the trial court." A similar rule has been applied in Winslow v. Winslow, 156 Okla. 260, 10 P.2d 666; Nelson v. Nelson, 175 Okla. 275, 52 P.2d 786; Coleman v. Coleman, 180 Okla. 574, 72 P.2d 369; Jacks v. Jacks, 196 Okla. 38, 163 P.2d 968; Whayman v. Whayman, 207 Okla. 371, 249 P.2d 1004; and, Weekley v. Weekley, 208 Okla. 651, 258 P.2d 622. In Hawkins v. Hawkins, supra, it is stated:
" In Jacks v. Jacks, Okla. Sup., 1945, 163 P.2d 968, 969, 970, the court said: "The trial court, in granting a divorce to the wife, may take into consideration the loss of her right of inheritance and make proper division of the property, not only the jointly acquired property, but may allow the wife alimony out of the property of the husband.