Reece v. Reece

59 S.E.2d 363, 232 N.C. 95, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 409
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 10, 1950·No. 610·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

EbviN, J.

The statute now codified as G-.S. 50-16 was enacted to establish an efficient procedure for enforcement of the marital right of the wife to support by the husband. Such right does not exist, however, in favor of a wife who has abandoned her husband without just cause. This being true, the court rightly refused the application of the plaintiff for an allowance for subsistence from the estate or earnings of the defendant pending the trial. Byerly v. Byerly, 194 N.C. 532, 140 S.E. 158; McManus v. McManus, 191 N.C. 140, 133 S.E. 9. See, also: Pollard v. Pollard, 221 N.C. 46, 19 S.E. 2d 1; and Byrum v. Byrum, 207 N.C. 655, 178 S.E. 97. In consequence, the order in question is

Affirmed.

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

Reece v. Reece, 59 S.E.2d 363, 232 N.C. 95, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 409 (N.C. 1950).

59 S.E.2d 363 (Reece v. Reece) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Linton v. Commissioner
1971 T.C. Memo. 19 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Parker v. Parker
134 S.E.2d 174 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)