Davidson v. Davidson

Decision Date06 May 1925
Docket Number(No. 459.)
Citation127 S.E. 682
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesDAVIDSON. v. DAVIDSON.

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Harding, Judge.

Suit for divorce by Loula Reid Davidson against John E. S. Davidson, in which plaintiff applied for alimony pendente lite and for counsel fees and expenses. Prom judgment awarding plaintiff counsel fees and alimony pendente lite, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

On January 10, 1925, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for divorce from bed and board, filed her complaint, and serv ed a written notice on the defendant that on January 16, 1925, she would apply for alimony pendente lite and for an allowance for counsel fees and expenses. Several affidavits were filed by the parties and the motion was heard on January 23. Among the findings of fact are the following:

(1) The plaintiff and defendant own jointly a home in the city of Charlotte, the title to which is in both plaintiff and defendant; the defendant having purchased same since the marriage and having the deed made to both the plaintiff and the defendant for the purpose of protecting the defendant and for protecting the plaintiff if any financial reverses should come to the defendant or in case of death of the defendant.

(2) Up until the 8th of January, 1925, the plaintiff and defendant had lived together in said home. On that date the plaintiff left the home of the defendant and has not occupied said home since said time, and the defendant is now in sole possession thereof. The value of said home is about $——. The defendant has no other property other than income from his practice as a physician, which aggregates annually $2,000, out of which are paid the expenses of the office, rent, salary of nurse or attendant in his office, and other expenses incidental to his own professional business, which amounts to $950 per year.

(3) The plaintiff has in her own right seven shares of stock in the Home Real Estate & Guaranty Company, in the city of Charlotte. Said stock is worth not less than the par value of $100 per share, and since the 1st day of January, 1925, there has been paid to her an annual dividend of 8 per cent. The plaintiff has no other means or income from which to derive a support. When the plaintiff left the home of defendant, she had in cash $117 and she has received as income $56, being 8 per cent. dividend on seven shares of stock par value $100 in Home Real Estate & Guaranty Company.

The defendant was ordered to pay into the clerk's office on February 15, 1925, $150 to cover the plaintiff's counsel fees and expenses, and $100 on the 1st day of March and on the first day of each succeeding month as alimony pendente lite. The defendant excepted and appealed.

Parker, Stewart, McRae & Bobbitt and Walter Clark, all of Charlotte, for appellant.

Thaddeus A. Adams, of Charlotte, for appellee.

ADAMS, J. This is an application for alimony pending the plaintiff's suit for divorce from bed and board. It is authorized by C. S. § 1666, which is to be distinguished from section 1665, providing for alimony after judgment, and from section 1667, providing for a reasonable subsistence under certainconditions without impairing the marriage contract.

The defendant contends that the amount allowed as temporary alimony is excessive and makes this the ground of one of his exceptions. It has been held in several of our decisions that, while the right to alimony involves a question of law, the amount of alimony and counsel fees is a matter of judicial discretion and usually not reviewable. Jones v. Jones, 173 N. C. 279, 91 S. E. 960; Barker v. Barker, 136 N. C. 316, 48 S. E. 733; Moore v. Moore, 130 N. C. 333, 41 S. E. 943; Miller v. Miller, 75 N. C. 70. Excepting attorney's fees and expenses, the amount ordinarily allowed pendente lite under section 1666 is not in excess of the amount prescribed by section 1665 upon a final judgment for divorce from bed and board; that is, one-third part of the net annual income from the estate and occupation or labor of the party against whom the judgment is rendered. 19 C. J. 222 (532). But this rule is not inflexible, and the amount to be allowed is not arbitrarily fixed by the statute. "This income, " said Mr. Justice Bynum in Miller v. Miller, supra, "May be derived from personal labor, wages or salary, as well as from lands or personal property." And in Muse v. Muse, 84 N. C. 35, Mr. Justice Ruffin remarked:

"A husband is not excused from the maintenance of his wife because he lacks an estate. He must labor if need be for her support."

But "before an allowance of temporary alimony is made admission or proof of the husband's ability to pay it should be shown. The allowance may be based on the husband's earnings, or his earning capacity, although he is not possessed of money or property." 19 C. J. 216 (518).

The parties hold the house and lot in the city of Charlotte as an estate by the entirety. Granting that the defendant has the right to control, use, and lease...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Rayfield v. Rayfield
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 12 de outubro de 1955
    ...on motion and sufficient evidence.' The amount of alimony and counsel fees decreed is a matter of judicial discretion. Davidson v. Davidson, 189 N.C. 625, 127 S.E. 682; Vaughan v. Vaughan, 211 N.C. 354, 190 S.E. 492; Butler v. Butler, 226 N.C. 594, 39 S.E.2d The lower court, in its sound di......
  • Conrad v. Conrad, 378
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 27 de abril de 1960
    ...when the court is called upon to make an award as provided by G.S. § 50-16. Kiser v. Kiser, 203 N.C. 428, 166 S.E. 304; Davidson v. Davidson, 189 N.C. 625, 127 S.E. 682. We think it certain the Legislature never contemplated the court would select the earnings for a single year in the past ......
  • Kiger v. Kiger, 379
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 21 de novembro de 1962
    ...it necessary for the defendant to move in and live with his father and to depend on his father for room and board. Cf. Davidson v. Davidson, 189 N.C. 625, 127 S.E. 682. The order entered below is set aside except as to custody, about which there is no controversy. The additional relief soug......
  • Bowes v. Bowes
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 6 de maio de 1975
    ...(1962); Conrad v. Conrad, 252 N.C. 412, 113 S.E.2d 912 (1960); Sguros v. Sguros, 252 N.C. 408, 114 S.E.2d 79 (1960); Davidson v. Davidson, 189 N.C. 625, 127 S.E. 682 (1925); Robinson v. Robinson, 10 N.C.App. 463, 179 S.E.2d 144 (1971). See also, G.S. § 50--16.5(a), which provides: 'Alimony ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT