Hobbs v. Hobbs
| Decision Date | 07 November 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 386.,386. |
| Citation | 218 N.C. 468,11 S.E.2d 311 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOBBS. v. HOBBS (two cases). |
Appeal from Superior Court, Sampson County; R. Hunt Parker, Judge.
Actions, consolidated for trial, by Samuel H. Hobbs against Efifie Harrison Hobbs for absolute divorce, wherein defendant set up a cross-action for alimony without divorce, and by Effie Harrison Hobbs against Samuel H. Hobbs foralimony without divorce. From an adverse judgment in each action, Effie Harrison Hobbs appeals, and Samuel H. Hobbs made a motion to dismiss the appeal in each case.
Appeal in first action dismissed and judgment in second action affirmed.
Two civil actions, for divorce and for alimony without divorce, respectively.
In the first action instituted 29 June, 1939, by Samuel H. Hobbs for absolute divorce on the ground of two years separation, the defendant, Effie Harrison Hobbs, in her answer set up a further defense and cross action for alimony without divorce and for an allowance for counsel fees, on the ground of abandonment and failure to support. Plaintiff denied these averments.
In the second action instituted 27 February, 1940, by Effie Harrison Hobbs for alimony without divorce on the ground that her husband had offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome. The defendant, in his answer, denies that such ground exists.
Upon the trial below the two cases were consolidated and tried together, separate issues in each case being submitted to the jury. In the first case the jury answered the issues as to residence, marriage and separation in the affirmative. But in answer to the fourth issue, the jury found that the separation was not caused by "plaintiff wilfully abandoning his wife without providing adequate support" for her. From judgment thereon defendant appeals to Supreme Court.
In the second action, the jury answered the issue as to marriage in the affirmative. But as to the second and third issues, the jury answered that defendant, Samuel H. Hobbs, did not offer such indignities to the person of his wife, the plaintiff, as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome, and that he did not separate himself from his wife and fail to provide her with necessary subsistence. From judgment thereon, the plaintiff appealed to Supreme Court, and assigns error.
J. D. Johnson, Jr., and P. D. Herring, both of Clinton, for plaintiff appellee.
Butler & Butler and E. C. Robinson, all of Clinton, for defend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rayfield v. Rayfield
...in a divorce a vinculo, Feldman v. Feldman, 236 N.C. 731, 73 S.E.2d 865; Stanley v. Stanley, 226 N.C. 129, 37 S.E.2d 118; Hobbs v. Hobbs, 218 N.C. 468, 11 S.E.2d 311; Duffy v. Duffy, 120 N.C. 346, 27 S.E. 28, and two, no such facts are before us. As to that question see: Annotations: 71 A.L......
-
Jenkins v. Jenkins
... ... answer in the divorce action now relied on by the defendant ... did not raise an issue. Silver v. Silver, 220 N.C ... 191, 16 S.E.2d 834; Hobbs v. Hobbs, 218 N.C. 468, 11 ... S.E.2d 311; Adams v. Adams, 212 N.C. 373, 193 S.E ... 274; Dawson v. [225 N.C. 684] Dawson, 211 ... N.C. 453, 190 ... ...
- In Re Harris' Will.
-
Feldman v. Feldman
...and we have no statute in this state allowing it.' Duffy v. Duffy, supra; Crews v. Crews, 175 N.C. 168, 95 S.E. 149; Hobbs v. Hobbs, 218 N.C. 468, 11 S.E.2d 311; Stanley v. Stanley, 226 N.C. 129, 37 S.E.2d 118; Annotation 166 A.L.R. As the right did not exist at common law, the right of the......