Bond v. Bond

71 S.E.2d 53, 235 N.C. 754
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 11, 1952
Docket747
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 71 S.E.2d 53 (Bond v. Bond) 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
Bond v. Bond, 71 S.E.2d 53, 235 N.C. 754 (N.C. 1952).

Opinion

71 S.E.2d 53 (1952)
235 N.C. 754

BOND
v.
BOND.

No. 747.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 1952.

L. J. Phipps, Chapel Hill, for plaintiff appellant.

Paul B. Edmundson, John S. Peacock, Goldsboro, and Bonner D. Sawyer, Hillsboro, for defendant appellee.

BARNHILL, Justice.

The exception to the judgment entered presents for decision only two questions: (1) Do the facts found support the judgment, and (2) does any error of law appear upon the face of the record? Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E.2d 609; Simmons v. Lee, 230 N.C. 216, 53 S.E.2d 79; and cases cited; National Surety Corp. v. Sharpe, 233 N.C. 642, 65 S.E.2d 138; *54 State v. Raynor, 235 N.C. 184, 69 S.E.2d 155.

Upon the findings made, the court correctly denied the motion for alimony pendente lite. But the cause was before the court for hearing of that motion only. It is so recited in the judgment. "It was not before the court on final hearing on the merits. Hence the court was without jurisdiction to dismiss the action * * *." Briggs v. Biggs, 234 N.C. 450, 67 S.E.2d 349.

The judgment entered must be modified so as to limit it to a denial of alimony pendente lite, and the cause must be reinstated on the docket for trial. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

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

Related

Wells v. Wells
512 S.E.2d 468 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1999)
Sprinkle v. Sprinkle
193 S.E.2d 468 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
Bridges Ex Rel. Bridges v. Jackson
121 S.E.2d 542 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Rowland v. Rowland
116 S.E.2d 795 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Columbus County v. Thompson
107 S.E.2d 302 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
State v. Robinson
103 S.E.2d 376 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Clark v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
102 S.E.2d 252 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
City of Goldsboro v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
97 S.E.2d 486 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Gould v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission
95 S.E.2d 910 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Harrell v. Scheidt
92 S.E.2d 182 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Bailey v. Bailey
90 S.E.2d 696 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Dellinger v. Bollinger
89 S.E.2d 592 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Crowley v. McDougald
85 S.E.2d 377 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Flynt Ex Rel. Barefoot v. Flynt
75 S.E.2d 901 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
State ex rel. Atkins v. Fortner
72 S.E.2d 594 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Town of Fremont v. Baker
72 S.E.2d 666 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 S.E.2d 53, 235 N.C. 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bond-v-bond-nc-1952.