Cole v. Adams, 814DC573
Decision Date | 06 April 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 814DC573,814DC573 |
Citation | 56 N.C.App. 714,289 S.E.2d 918 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Vila J. COLE v. Ben ADAMS and Winfred Morris Adams. |
Lanier & Fountain by Charles S. Lanier, Jacksonville, for defendant-appellant.
We initially note that defendant has failed to set forth any assignments of error and exceptions at the conclusion of the record on appeal or in his brief. Failure to follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure subjects defendant's appeal to dismissal. Marsico v. Adams, 47 N.C.App. 196, 266 S.E.2d 696 (1980). This Court, however, has decided to exercise its discretionary power and consider the one "issue" argued in defendant's brief on its merit. Plaintiff has not filed a brief.
Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for directed verdict because the plaintiff based her case upon the "Doctrine of Necessities" and failed to meet her burden of proof. Since the case was tried by the court without a jury, defendant's motion will be treated as a motion for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied defendant's motions to dismiss made at the close of plaintiff's evidence and at the close of all the evidence. This Court has stated that a defendant's motion to dismiss made at the close of all the evidence raises the question of Neasham v. Day, 34 N.C.App. 53, 55, 237 S.E.2d 287, 288-89 (1977).
The "Doctrine of Necessities" as discussed in 2 Lee, North Carolina Family Law § 130 (4th ed. 1980) is used to hold a husband liable to merchants or other outside parties who have furnished necessities to the wife. Necessities, or necessaries, "are those things which are essential to her [a wife's] health and comfort, according to the rank and fortune of her husband." Id. § 132 at 128.
When the husband and wife are living together, a presumption arises that she has been given the authority by the husband to purchase suitable household goods on his credit....
Where the husband and wife are living apart, there is no presumption in fact that she has any authority to pledge his credit even for necessaries. The presumption is that she has in fact no authority. Tradesmen must rebut the presumption by showing authority in fact or else bring the case within the rule that the husband has, without justifiable cause, neglected to provide necessaries for her.
Id. § 133 at 130-31. Tradesmen must further prove that the merchandise purchased by the wife is a necessity for her; and that the merchandise has not otherwise been supplied to her. Id. at 130. The general rule is that 41 C.J.S. Husband and Wife § 52a....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bartrom v. Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
...or her marital duties, the obligations of the other spouse were considered suspended. She supports her premise with Cole v. Adams (1982), 56 N.C.App. 714, 289 S.E.2d 918 and Holiday Hospital Assoc. v. Schwarz (1964), Fla.App., 166 So.2d 493, cases which held husbands liable for the debts of......
-
Forsyth Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Chisholm
...or apply the separation exception since the Pool decision. However, the separation exception was applied in Cole v. Adams, 56 N.C.App. 714, 289 S.E.2d 918 (1982), where the Court of Appeals--as that court was required to do--followed the precedent established by this Court in Pool decided m......
-
Maxton Housing Authority v. McLean
...for the rent payments and that the Housing Authority ought to sue and collect the rent money due from him. See Cole v. Adams, 56 N.C.App. 714, 289 S.E.2d 918 (1982). Even assuming that the plaintiff could sue David McLean under this or any of the defendant's other theories, the law of North......
-
Forsyth Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Chisholm
...fault of the spouse on whom the creditor seeks to impose liability. Pool v. Everton, 50 N.C. (5 Jones) 241 (1858); Cole v. Adams, 56 N.C.App. 714, 289 S.E.2d 918 (1982). I. With respect to defendant's contention that Ms. Chisholm is not entitled to benefit from the separation exception to t......