Bond v. Bond, 747
| Decision Date | 11 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 747,747 |
| Citation | 235 N.C. 754,71 S.E.2d 53 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BOND, v. BOND. |
L. J. Phipps, Chapel Hill, for plaintiff appellant.
Paul B. Edmundson, John S. Peacock, Goldsboro, and Bonner D. Sawyer, Hillsboro, for defendant appellee.
The exception to the judgment entered presents for decision only two questions: (1) Do the facts found support the judgment, and (2) does any error of law appear upon the face of the record? Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E.2d 609; Simmons v. Lee, 230 N.C. 216, 53 S.E.2d 79; and cases cited; National Surety Corp. v. Sharpe, 233 N.C. 642, 65 S.E.2d 138; State v. Raynor, 235 N.C. 184, 69 S.E.2d 155.
Upon the findings made, the court correctly denied the motion for alimony pendente lite. But the cause was before the court for hearing of that motion only. It is so recited in the judgment. Briggs v. Biggs, 234 N.C. 450, 67 S.E.2d 349.
The judgment entered must be modified so as to limit it to a denial of alimony pendente lite, and the cause must be reinstated on the docket for trial. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson
...to support his judgment putting the six months jail sentence into effect. Bailey v. Bailey, 243 N.C. 412, 90 S.E.2d 696; Bond v. Bond, 235 N.C. 754, 71 S.E.2d 53. The mere finding of fact by the judge 'that the defendant has violated the terms of this suspended sentence, and has not made th......
-
Wells v. Wells
...and authority to dismiss alimony claim because case "was not before the court on final hearing on the merits"), Bond v. Bond, 235 N.C. 754, 755, 71 S.E.2d 53, 54 (1952)(trial court at APL hearing "correctly denied" that motion but improperly dismissed alimony claim, the latter being ordered......
-
Clark v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
...Surratt v. Chas. E. Lambeth Insurance Agency, 244 N.C. 121, 93 S.E. id 72; Barnette v. Woody, 242 N.C. 424, 88 S.E.2d 223; Bond v. Bond, 235 N.C. 754, 71 S.E.2d 53. The motion to dismiss is The determinative question on this appeal is whether or not the court below committed error in allowi......
-
Columbus County v. Thompson
...of the record? City of Salisbury v. Barnhardt, 249 N.C. 549, 107 S.E.2d 297; Bailey v. Bailey, 243 N.C. 412, 90 S.E.2d 696; Bond v. Bond, 235 N.C. 754, 71 S.E.2d 53. It does not bring up for review the evidence upon which the findings are based. Suits v. Old Equity Life Insurance Co., 241 N......