Campbell v. Campbell
| Citation | 234 N.C. 188,66 S.E.2d 672 |
| Decision Date | 26 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 102,102 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | CAMPBELL, v. CAMPBELL et al. |
Cooley & May, Nashville, and Hugh G. Horton, Williamston, for plaintiff, appellee.
Peel & Peel, Williamston, for defendant, W. A. Campbell, appellant.
The assignments of error raise this single inquiry: Was the plaintiff's evidence sufficient to withstand the defendant's motion for a compulsory nonsuit and to support the verdict in her favor?
The defendant insists that this question should be answered in the negative. He advances these arguments to sustain his position: That the separation agreement of August 28, 1936, embodies the only contract ever made between him and the plaintiff with respect to the support of his minor child; that in consequence the plaintiff's alleged cause of action is necessarily predicated upon the separation agreement; that the plaintiff's own testimony shows that she breached the separation agreement in June, 1945, by refusing to perform her covenant to execute 'all such deeds * * * as may be necessary to * * * make effectual' the release of her rights in the defendant's property; and that this violation of the terms of the separation agreement by the plaintiff relieved the defendant from any further liability under his covenant to make periodic payments to plaintiff for the support of his minor child.
The defendant's position is a questionable one even if his assumptions that the plaintiff's claim is necessarily based on the separation agreement and that she has violated such agreement in the manner indicated be accepted as valid. This is true because it can be asserted with much persuasiveness that the plaintiff's covenant to execute such deeds may be necessary to make effectual the release of her rights in the defendant's property and the defendant's covenant to make periodic payments to plaintiff for the support of his minor child are independent rather than interdependent, and that in consequence the breach by the plaintiff of her covenant to execute the deeds will not exonerate the defendant from the performance of his covenant to make the payments. Fifth Avenue Bank of New York v. Hammond Realty Co., 7 Cir., 130 F.2d 993; Hughes v. Burke, 167 Md. 472, 175 A. 335; Moller v. Moller, 121 N.J.Eq. 175, 188 A. 505.
We refrain, however, from expressing any opinion on this precise point, for the very simple reason that the second premise underlying the defendant's position, i. e., that the plaintiff's claim is based on the separation agreement of August 28, 1936, is lacking in validity.
Manifestly the plaintiff's cause of action cannot be made to hinge on the separation agreement. That agreement has been without legal efficacy since October 28, 1936, when the plaintiff and the defendant resumed their marital relation. This is so because a separation agreement is annulled, avoided and rescinded, at least as to the future, by the act of the spouses in subsequently resuming conjugal cohabitation. Reynolds v. Reynolds, 210 N.C. 554, 187 S.E. 768; State v. Gossett, 203 N.C. 641, 166 S.E. 754; Moore v. Moore, 185 N.C. 332, 117 S.E. 12; Archbell v. Archbell, 158 N.C. 408, 409, 74 S.E. 327, Ann.Cas. 1913D, 261; Smith v. King, 107 N.C. 273, 12 S.E. 57. The subsequent separation of the parties on January 1, 1940, did not revive the separation agreement. 42 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, § 601. It is noted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Industries, Inc.
...present. "A contract is an agreement, upon a sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing." Campbell v. Campbell, 234 N.C. 188, 191, 66 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1951). Cases in which an employee relocates merely as an incident of accepting new employment will not rebut the presum......
-
McCraw v. Llewellyn
...doing a particular act.' Belk's Dept. Store of New Bern v. George Washington Fire Ins. Co., 208 N.C. 267, 180 S.E. 63; Campbell v. Campbell, 234 N.C. 188, 66 S.E.2d 672; Bank of Varina v. Slaughter, 250 N.C. 355, 108 S.E.2d 594. ''One of the essential elements of every contract is mutuality......
-
Murphy v. Murphy, 389
...maintain an action upon the contract to recover the $240 default. Goodyear v. Goodyear, 257 N.C. 374, 126 S.E.2d 113; Campbell v. Campbell, 234 N.C. 188, 66 S.E.2d 672. Of course, plaintiff is not the beneficiary of the fund, she is merely trustee for the children. Goodyear v. Goodyear, sup......
-
Walker v. Walker
...the executory purposes for which a separation agreement is terminated is the payment of child support. See Campbell v. Campbell, 234 N.C. 188, 191, 66 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1951) (suit to collect child support cannot be based on promise in separation agreement because "[t]hat agreement has been ......