Gaskins v. Gaskins

159 S.E.2d 318, 273 N.C. 133, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 573
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 28, 1968·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

To establish her right to alimony under G.S. 50-16, plaintiff undertook to prove that defendant, by his assaults and cruel treatment, had put her in such fear for her safety that she was compelled to leave home. In such a situation, the abandonment would be his — not hers — and the judge so instructed the jury. Bailey v. Bailey, 243 N.C. 412, 90 S.E. 2d 696; Caddell v. Caddell, 236 N.C. 686, 73 S.E. 2d 923; Eggleston v. Eggleston, 228 N.C. 668, 47 S.E. 2d 243. The crucial question, therefore, was who abandoned whom. The jury, under proper instructions, answered the determinative issue against plaintiff.

We have carefully examined each assignment of error, and in the trial we find

No error.

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

Gaskins v. Gaskins, 159 S.E.2d 318, 273 N.C. 133, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 573 (N.C. 1968).

159 S.E.2d 318 (Gaskins v. Gaskins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Radford v. Radford
172 S.E.2d 897 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1970)