Moody v. . Moody

23 S.E. 933, 118 N.C. 926
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 23 S.E. 933 (Moody v. . Moody) 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
Moody v. . Moody, 23 S.E. 933, 118 N.C. 926 (N.C. 1896).

Opinion

Faircloth, C. J.:

This is an action for divorce and alimony pendente lite. The summons was issued September 0, 1895, by the clerk of Macon county superior court, N. C., directed to the sheriff of that county. The only return is “served September 9, 1895,” by one Dockins, sheriff of Robun county, Georgia. There was no attempt to show service by publication nor in the manner prescribed by Act 1891, Ch. 120. The defendant, on the return day, made a special appearance, and moved to dismiss the action for want of service, to which he was then entitled, but without filing exception to the refusal to dismiss at the *927 same time he filed his own affidavit and several others, denying the allegations of the plaintiff's affidavit, which was treated as a complaint. This waived all irregularity in the service, and put the defendant in court as completely as if the summons had been duly and legally served. The court then heard the affidavits, and, without finding the facts, rendered judgment, making an allowance to the plaintiff, and the whole record is sent to this Court. That was erroneous. The Code, Sec. 1291, requires the plaintiff to set. forth facts which “ shall be found by the judge to be true,” and to these facts he must apply the law of the case, and either party may appeal from his judgment. This has been held in other cases, and that the facts found by the court must appear in the record sent to this Court. Morris v. Morris, 89 N. C., 109; Griffith v. Griffith, 89 N. C., 113; Lassiter v. Lassiter, 92 N. C., 129. We must therefore send the case back, to the end that the facts may be found by the court, which this Court has no authority to do. Remanded.

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

Related

Williams v. Williams
134 S.E.2d 227 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
McManus v. . McManus
133 S.E. 9 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
McCollum v. . Stack
124 S.E. 864 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Horton v. . Horton
119 S.E. 490 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Moore v. . Moore
117 S.E. 12 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
White v. . White
103 S.E. 216 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Easeley v. . Easeley
92 S.E. 353 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 S.E. 933, 118 N.C. 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moody-v-moody-nc-1896.