Martin v. Martin.

40 S.E. 822, 130 N.C. 27, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 6
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 4, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 40 S.E. 822 (Martin v. Martin.) 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
Martin v. Martin., 40 S.E. 822, 130 N.C. 27, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 6 (N.C. 1902).

Opinion

Clark, J.

The complaint sets out no ground for an absolute divorce, and is insufficient as a complaint for divorce from bed and board in that it does not specifically state the circumstances of the alleged acts of cruelty, give time and place, and state what was plaintiff’s own conduct, and that such acts were without provocation on her part. O'Connor v. O’Connor, 109 N. C., 139; Jackson v. Jackson, 105 N. C., 433; White v. White, 84 N. C., 340; McQueen v. McQueen, 82 N. C., 471. And such defective complaint can not be cured by verdict. Ladd v. Ladd, 121 N. C., 118; White v. White, supra. The allegation of drunkenness was withdrawn on the trial.

The amendment was a nullity, because the only verification is “sworn and subscribed to.” This would be defective as a verification, under The Code, Sec. 258, to a pleading in an ordinary action, Cole v. Boyd, 125 N. C., 496; a fortiori this is so in an action for divorce, as to which the law, which does not favor divorce, required a still more specific affidavit. The Code, Sec. 1286. The original complaint is thus verified, but is insufficient for reasons above stated. The amendment is insufficient because not thus verified, and this requirement is not a matter of form, but substance, and a defect therein is jurisdictional. This has been too recently decided to require discussion. Holloman v. Holloman, 127 N. C., 15; Nichols v. Nichols, 128 N. C., 108. The Court, however, will not dismiss, but will grant a new trial, that plaintiff may apply for leave to amend, if so advised. Ladd v. Ladd, 121 N. C., 118.

New Trial.

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

Related

In re O.E.M.
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2021
Fansler v. Honeycutt
728 S.E.2d 6 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2012)
In re T.R.P.
636 S.E.2d 787 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2006)
In re T.R.P.
619 S.E.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Matter of Triscari Children
426 S.E.2d 435 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Allen v. Allen
94 S.E.2d 325 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Carpenter v. Carpenter
93 S.E.2d 617 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Calaway v. . Harris
47 S.E.2d 796 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Best v. . Best
44 S.E.2d 214 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
Lawrence v. . Lawrence
39 S.E.2d 807 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Hodges v. . Hodges
39 S.E.2d 596 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Pearce v. . Pearce
35 S.E.2d 636 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Howell v. . Howell
25 S.E.2d 169 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Pollard v. . Pollard
19 S.E.2d 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Ragan v. . Ragan
194 S.E. 458 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Smithdeal v. Smithdeal
206 N.C. 397 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Carnes v. . Carnes
169 S.E. 222 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Brewer v. . Brewer
153 S.E. 163 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Davidson v. . Davidson
127 S.E. 682 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Wills v. Wills
96 N.E. 763 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 S.E. 822, 130 N.C. 27, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martin-nc-1902.