Webb v. . Webb

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Webb v. . Webb

23 S.E.2d 897, 222 N.C. 551, 1943 N.C. LEXIS 371

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 8, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 23 S.E.2d 897 (Webb v. . Webb) 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

Webb v. . Webb, 23 S.E.2d 897, 222 N.C. 551, 1943 N.C. LEXIS 371 (N.C. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Devin, J.

The court below correctly ruled that plaintiff was entitled to maintain her action here for unpaid installments of alimony decreed under the Louisiana judgment (Lockman v. Lockman, 220 N. C., 95, 16 S. E. [2d], 670), and that the North Carolina statute of limitations, rather than the Louisiana statute of prescription, applied. Arrington v. Arrington, 127 N. C., 190, 37 S. E., 212; Clodfelter v. Wells, 212 N. C., 823, 195 S. E., 11.

However, it appears from the plaintiff’s testimony that certain payments made to her by the defendant’s intestate were not credited upon *552 tbe amounts now claimed to be due as alimony. Thus, an open question for the jury was raised as to the amount plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the instruction to the jury, if they found the facts to be as the evidence tended to show, to answer the issue, as to the amount due, $5,850, the full amount claimed, was erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant, necessitating a new trial. Combs v. Cooper, 194 N. C., 203, 139 S. E., 224.

New trial.

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

Devin, J.

The court below correctly ruled that plaintiff was entitled to maintain her action here for unpaid installments of alimony decreed under the Louisiana judgment (Lockman v. Lockman, 220 N. C., 95, 16 S. E. [2d], 670), and that the North Carolina statute of limitations, rather than the Louisiana statute of prescription, applied. Arrington v. Arrington, 127 N. C., 190, 37 S. E., 212; Clodfelter v. Wells, 212 N. C., 823, 195 S. E., 11.

However, it appears from the plaintiff’s testimony that certain payments made to her by the defendant’s intestate were not credited upon *552 tbe amounts now claimed to be due as alimony. Thus, an open question for the jury was raised as to the amount plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the instruction to the jury, if they found the facts to be as the evidence tended to show, to answer the issue, as to the amount due, $5,850, the full amount claimed, was erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant, necessitating a new trial. Combs v. Cooper, 194 N. C., 203, 139 S. E., 224.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 S.E.2d 897, 222 N.C. 551, 1943 N.C. LEXIS 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-webb-nc-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack