Goodman v. Goodman, 105.
| Decision Date | 18 September 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 105.,105. |
| Citation | 208 N. C. 416,181 S.E. 328 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | GOODMAN. v. GOODMAN. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; Warlick, Judge.
Action by Beulah B. Goodman against L. Victor Goodman. Judgment for plain tiff. From an order allowing plaintiff's motion to require defendant to pay alimony according to terms of decree, defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Motion in the cause to require defendant to pay alimony according to terms of decree entered at July term, 1931, Buncombe superior court, affirmed on appeal. Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C. 794, 161 S. E. 688.
The motion was heard upon affidavits, none of which appears in the record. Compliance is resisted presumably upon the grounds that in a subsequent action brought by the defendant against the plaintiff it is alleged a decree of absolute divorce was entered under the two-year separation statute, Code 1931, § 1659(a), Pub. Laws 1933, c. 163, at the December term, 1933, Buncombe superior court.
It was apparently the contention of movant that this subsequent divorce, even if properly granted, was no defense to plaintiff's motion under the decision in Howell v. Howell, 206 N. C. 672, 174 S. E. 921.
It further appears that at the February term, 1934, the alimony decree was by consent modified and reduced in amount, payable in installments of $20 each, with the understanding: "In the event of the failure of the said L. V. Goodman to make any of the foregoing payments at the time and place provided, the said plaintiff Beulah Goodman shall by such failure be restored to all the rights for the payment of any moneys due her by the said L. V. Goodman that she had prior to the entering of this consent judgment, it being the intent and purpose of this judgment to secure the payment of the $350.00 and to provide against the waiver of nothing by the said Beulah Goodman in event that the said L. V. Goodman does not live up to the letter and spirit thereof."
From an order allowing the plaintiff's motion, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.
W. A. Sullivan, of Asheville, for appellant.
Zeb F. Curtis and Ellis C. Jones, both of Asheville, for appellee.
We are precluded from considering or determining the question sought tobe presented by defendant's appeal for the reason that the case, as sent up, consists entirely of the judgment, and no other part of the record proper appears in the transcript. Union Central Life Insurance v. Bullard, 207 N. C. 652, 178 S. E. 113: State v. Ravensford...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thrush v. Thrush, 165
...647, 166 S.E. 747; Payne v. Brown, 205 N.C. 785, 172 S.E. 348; State v. Ravensford Lumber Co., 207 N.C. 47, 175 S.E. 713; Goodman v. Goodman, 208 N.C. 416, 181 S.E. 328; Abernethy v. First Security Trust Co., 211 N.C. 450, 190 S.E. 735; Washington County v. Norfolk Southern Land Co., 222 N.......
-
Ericson v. Ericson
...S.E. 564; State v. Ravensford Lbr. Co., 207 N.C. 47, 175 S.E. 713; Union Cent Life Ins. Co. v. Bullard, 207 N.C. 652, 178 S.E. 113; Goodman v. Goodman, supra; Bank McCullers, 211 N.C. 327, 190 S.E. 217; Washington County v. Land Co., 222 N.C. 637, 24 S.E.2d 338. 'The pleadings are a necessa......
-
Warshaw v. Warshaw, 680
...Riggan v. Harrison, 203 N.C. 191, 165 S.E. 358; Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Bullard, 207 N.C. 652, 178 S.E. 113; Goodman v. Goodman, 208 N.C. 416, 181 S.E. 328; Farmers Bank v. McCullers, 211 N.C. 327, 190 S.E. 217; Ericson v. Ericson, 226 N.C. 474, 38 S.E.2d The rules of this Court......
-
Allen v. Allen
...S.E. 741. 'Failure to send up necessary parts of the record proper has uniformly resulted in dismissal of the appeal.' Goodman v. Goodman, 208 N.C. 416, 181 S.E. 328, 329; Payne v. Brown, 205 N.C. 785, 172 S.E. 348; Riggan v. Harrison, 203 N.C. 191, 165 S.E. 358; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 78......