Blanchard v. . Blanchard

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Blanchard v. . Blanchard

36 S.E.2d 919, 226 N.C. 152, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 398

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 27, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 36 S.E.2d 919 (Blanchard v. . Blanchard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blanchard v. . Blanchard, 36 S.E.2d 919, 226 N.C. 152, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 398 (N.C. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

DeNNY, J.

It is unnecessary for a husband to depart from his home and leave his wife in order- to abandon her. By cruel treatment or failure to provide for her support, he may compel her to leave him. This, under our decisions, would constitute abandonment by the husband. Crews v. Crews, 175 N. C., 168, 95 S. E., 149; Dowdy v. Dowdy, 154 N. C., 558, 70 S. E., 917; High v. Bailey, 107 N. C., 70, 12 S. E., 45. The plaintiff, however, in order to obtain affirmative relief under the provisions of G. S., 50-16, must meet the requirements of the statute for divorce from bed and board. G. S., 50-7; Pollard v. Pollard, 221 N. C., 46, 19 S. E. (2d), 1; McManus v. McManus, 191 N. C., 740, 133 S. E., 9.

The appellant insists that the evidence adduced in the trial below is insufficient to show abandonment and that his motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed. We think the position well taken and must be sustained.

We are not inadvertent to those cases where relief has been granted as a result of a long course of conduct constituting such indignities to the person of the other as to render his or her condition intolerable and life burdensome; but the plaintiff is relying solely upon subsections 1 and 2 of G. S., 50-7, to wit, that the defendant abandoned her and maliciously turned her out of doors. And she sums up her reasons for leaving the defendant on 22 February, 1943, in the following language: “I was scared he might do me harm, and I got tired of seeing him ride with this girl so much, I thought I would go away for awhile and get some rest.” We do not think the evidence, when considered as a whole and in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, is sufficient to show abandonment by the defendant. It follows, therefore, as pointed out in Medlin v. Medlin, 175 N. C., 529, 95 S. E., 857, the plaintiff is not entitled to alimony.

The motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been sustained.

Reversed.

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

DeNNY, J.

It is unnecessary for a husband to depart from his home and leave his wife in order- to abandon her. By cruel treatment or failure to provide for her support, he may compel her to leave him. This, under our decisions, would constitute abandonment by the husband. Crews v. Crews, 175 N. C., 168, 95 S. E., 149; Dowdy v. Dowdy, 154 N. C., 558, 70 S. E., 917; High v. Bailey, 107 N. C., 70, 12 S. E., 45. The plaintiff, however, in order to obtain affirmative relief under the provisions of G. S., 50-16, must meet the requirements of the statute for divorce from bed and board. G. S., 50-7; Pollard v. Pollard, 221 N. C., 46, 19 S. E. (2d), 1; McManus v. McManus, 191 N. C., 740, 133 S. E., 9.

The appellant insists that the evidence adduced in the trial below is insufficient to show abandonment and that his motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed. We think the position well taken and must be sustained.

We are not inadvertent to those cases where relief has been granted as a result of a long course of conduct constituting such indignities to the person of the other as to render his or her condition intolerable and life burdensome; but the plaintiff is relying solely upon subsections 1 and 2 of G. S., 50-7, to wit, that the defendant abandoned her and maliciously turned her out of doors. And she sums up her reasons for leaving the defendant on 22 February, 1943, in the following language: “I was scared he might do me harm, and I got tired of seeing him ride with this girl so much, I thought I would go away for awhile and get some rest.” We do not think the evidence, when considered as a whole and in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, is sufficient to show abandonment by the defendant. It follows, therefore, as pointed out in Medlin v. Medlin, 175 N. C., 529, 95 S. E., 857, the plaintiff is not entitled to alimony.

The motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been sustained.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 S.E.2d 919, 226 N.C. 152, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanchard-v-blanchard-nc-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack