Hodges v. Hodges

• Decision Date: 09 October 1946
• Docket Number: 234
• Parties: HODGES v. HODGES.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

39 S.E.2d 596

226 N.C. 570

HODGES v. HODGES.

No. 234

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 9, 1946

Civil action instituted by the plaintiff for alimony without divorce, as provided in G.S. s 50-16.

Pursuant to notice, the plaintiff made application to his Honor for a subsistence allowance and counsel fees pending the trial and final determination of this cause. At the hearing on the application, the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the action, according to the pleadings of the plaintiff was brought prematurely. Motion denied.

Alimony pendente lite and counsel fees were awarded. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error.

Wellons & Canaday, of Smithfield, for plaintiff.

Neill McK. Salmon, of Lillington, and J. R. Young, of Dunn, for defendant.

DENNY Justice.

The defendant now moves in this Court, to dismiss the action on the ground that the Court is without jurisdiction, for the reason that the complaint filed in this cause is not verified as required by G.S. s 50-16.

The appellee admits the complaint is not verified, but insists that a verification of the pleadings in an action for alimony without divorce is not required by the statute.

In G.S. s 50-16, it is provided 'In actions brought under this section, the wife shall not be required to file the affidavit provided in s 50-8, but shall verify her complaint as prescribed in the case of ordinary civil actions. ' We hold that this provision is mandatory as to the verification but relieves the wife of the necessity of filing the affidavit required by G.S. s 50-8, and substitutes therefor the form prescribed for the verification of pleadings in ordinary civil actions. Moreover, this Court held in Cowles v. Hardin, 79 N.C. 577, where a statute directs that the complaint 'shall be sworn to as in other actions', the want of a proper verification is a fatal defect, for which judgment will be arrested. And Stacy C. J., said, in speaking for the Court in Padgett v. Long 225 N.C. 392, 35 S.E.2d 234, 235: 'It will be noted that the right which the plaintiff seeks to enforce is statutory. No such right existed at common law. It is essential therefore that the cause of action be laid within the terms of the statute. 1 Am.Jur., 410. One who predicates his cause of action on a statute must bring himself within its provisions. Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Biddinger, 63 Ind.App 30, 113 N.E. 1027. See Moose v. Barrett, 223 N.C. 524, 27 S.E.2d 532. 'Where a right is statutory, the claimant cannot recover unless he brings himself within the terms of the statute.' 2nd headnote, United States v. Perryman, 100 U.S. 235, 25 L.Ed. 645.'

It is apparent that the able Judge who heard this matter below was...