Hall v. Hall

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hall v. Hall

108 S.E.2d 487, 250 N.C. 275, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 646

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 6, 1959

Docket377

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 108 S.E.2d 487 (Hall v. Hall) 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

Hall v. Hall, 108 S.E.2d 487, 250 N.C. 275, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 646 (N.C. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR CuRiam.

The findings of fact were sufficient to support the ■award of alimony pendente lite and counsel fees. Furthermore, in our opinion, the facts found were supported by competent evidence.

The contention of the defendant that the alleged marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void because of their failure to file a health 'certificate with the Register of Deeds of Franklin County, as required by G.S. 51-14, is without merit. Failure to file a *277 health certificate as required by law does not invalidate an otherwise legal marriage; but such failure to comply with the statute in this respect, if true, does make the plaintiff and the defendant herein subject to indictment, .and, if convicted, to the infliction of the penalty or penalties provided for the violation of G.S. 51-14.

The findings of the court 'below are not binding on the parties nor receivable in evidence in the trial of the case on its1 merits. Bumgarner v. Bumgarner, 231 N.C. 600, 58 S.E. 2d 360; Barwick v. Barwick, 228 N.C. 109, 44 S.E. 2d 597.

Moreover, the amounts allowed to 4 plaintiff for subsistence pendente lite and for counsel fees are determined by the trial judge in his discretion and .are not reviewable on appeal unless there has been an abuse ¡of discretion. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 234 N.C. 1, 65 S.E. 2d 375; Fogartie v. Fogartie, 236 N.C. 188, 72 S.E. 2d 226. No abuse of discretion is made to 'appear.

The order of the court below allowing alimony pendente lite and awarding counsel fees will be upheld.

Affirmed.

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

PeR CuRiam.

The findings of fact were sufficient to support the ■award of alimony pendente lite and counsel fees. Furthermore, in our opinion, the facts found were supported by competent evidence.

The contention of the defendant that the alleged marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void because of their failure to file a health 'certificate with the Register of Deeds of Franklin County, as required by G.S. 51-14, is without merit. Failure to file a *277 health certificate as required by law does not invalidate an otherwise legal marriage; but such failure to comply with the statute in this respect, if true, does make the plaintiff and the defendant herein subject to indictment, .and, if convicted, to the infliction of the penalty or penalties provided for the violation of G.S. 51-14.

The findings of the court 'below are not binding on the parties nor receivable in evidence in the trial of the case on its1 merits. Bumgarner v. Bumgarner, 231 N.C. 600, 58 S.E. 2d 360; Barwick v. Barwick, 228 N.C. 109, 44 S.E. 2d 597.

Moreover, the amounts allowed to 4 plaintiff for subsistence pendente lite and for counsel fees are determined by the trial judge in his discretion and .are not reviewable on appeal unless there has been an abuse ¡of discretion. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 234 N.C. 1, 65 S.E. 2d 375; Fogartie v. Fogartie, 236 N.C. 188, 72 S.E. 2d 226. No abuse of discretion is made to 'appear.

The order of the court below allowing alimony pendente lite and awarding counsel fees will be upheld.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E.2d 487, 250 N.C. 275, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-hall-nc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack