Newell v. Newell
202 N.C. 255
Opinion
Conceding, without deciding, that it was error to continue to the hearing plaintiff’s motion for alimony pendente lile, nevertheless, in the absence of a sufficient showing, which perhaps may yet be made, the refusal to allow the motion is not cause for appellate interference. Hennis v. Hennis, 180 N. C., 606, 105 S. E., 274; Easely v. Easely, 173 N. C., 530, 92 S. E., 353.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Newell v. Newell, 202 N.C. 255 (N.C. 1932).
202 N.C. 255 (Newell v. Newell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Easeley v. . Easeley
92 S.E. 353 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Hennis v. . Hennis
105 S.E. 274 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)