Harrell v. Harrell
Decision Date | 13 December 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 385,385 |
Parties | Gladys HARRELL v. Walter R. HARRELL, Jr. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Robert B. Wilson, Jr., Winston-Salem, for plaintiff appellee.
W. Scott Buck, Winston-Salem, for defendant appellant.
In disposing of the former appeal this Court had this to say: '* * * Pending the trial and final determination of the issues in an action for alimony without divorce, the wife may apply to the court for reasonable subsistence and attorney's fees to be secured from the husband's estate or earnings, according to his condition and circumstances.' Indeed, 'Any allowance ordered may be modified or vacated at any time, on the application of either party. G.S. § 50-16. The purpose of the allowance for attorney's fees is to put the wife on substantially even terms with the husband in the litigation (citing) Mercer v. Mercer, 253 N.C. 164, 116 S.E.2d 443. The amount of the allowance for subsistence pendente lite is for the trial judge. He has full power to act without intervention of a jury, and his discretion in this respect is not reviewable, except in case of manifest abuse of discretion. (Citing) Mercer v. Mercer, supra; Fogartie v. Fogartie, 236 N.C. 188, 72 S. E.2d 226. The granting of an allowance and the amount thereof does not necessarily depend upon the earnings of the husband. One who has no income, but is ablebodied and capable of earning, may be ordered to pay subsistence. (Citing cases).
And in closing the opinion Moore, J., speaking for * * *'the Court, declared:
Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the allowance, as stated above, is subject to modification from time to time. In that light, it may not be amiss to grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Teague v. Teague, 706
...for such findings and no charge of the plaintiff's unfaithfulness. Griffith v. Griffith, 265 N.C. 521, 144 S.E.2d 589; Harrell v. Harrell, 256 N.C. 96, 123 S.E.2d 220; Byerly v. Byerly, 194 N.C. 532, 140 S.E. The show cause order issued by and returnable before Judge Gambill was properly is......
-
Peoples v. Peoples
...Teague v. Teague, 266 N.C. 320, 146 S.E.2d 87 (1966); Griffith v. Griffith, 265 N.C. 521, 144 S.E.2d 589 (1965); and Harrell v. Harrell, 256 N.C. 96, 123 S.E.2d 220 (1961). Each of these cases was decided under the law as it was prior to 1 October 1967 and are not Rule 52 of the Rules of Ci......
-
Griffith v. Griffith, 287
...is not reviewable except for abuse of discretion or for error of law. Deal v. Deal, 259 N.C. 489, 131 S.E.2d 24; Harrell v. Harrell, 256 N.C. 96, 123 S.E.2d 220. The foregoing decisions sustain therefusal of the court to award alimony pendente lite and to order the home surrendered to the L......