Johnson v. Johnson
| Citation | 142 N.C. 462,55 S.E. 341 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1906 |
| Parties | JOHNSON . v. JOHNSON. |
1. Divorce — Annulment ov Marriage — Pleading—Complaint—Verification.
A suit by a wife to annul the marriage on the ground that she was of unsound mind at the time of the marriage, is a proceeding for divorce, and the court has no jurisdiction unless the complaint is verified as required in divorce cases.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 17, Cent. Dig. Divorce, §§ 283, 340.]
2. Same—Motion to Set Aside Decree—Parties—Right to Intervene.
In a suit by a wife to annul the marriage on the ground that she was of unsound mind at the time of the marriage, a decree was rendered invalidating the marriage, but plaintiff subsequently moved to set aside the decree on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, and a third person sought to intervene and oppose the motion on the ground that he had purchased land from those whom he was informed and believed had purchased the same from plaintiff. Held, that there was no ground for permitting such intervention.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 17, Cent. Dig. Divorce, § 534.]
Appeal from Superior Court, Chatham County; Moore, Judge.
Suit by Adella V. Johnson against W. Mangum Johnson, to set aside the marriage of the parties, in which a decree was rendered for plaintiff. Motion by plaintiff to set aside the decree, and application by J. A. Dark to be allowed to intervene and oppose the motion. From a judgment denying the application of Dark, and granting plaintiff's motion, Dark appeals. Dismissed.
See 53 S. E. 623, 141 N. C. 91.
Motion to set aside decree, invalidating her marriage to the defendant, made by plaintiff. At the same time, J. A. Dark made application to be allowed to intervene, and oppose said motion. The motion and application wye heard by Judge Moore, who denied the 'application of Dark, and granted the plaintiff's motion, from which judgment the said Dark appealed, and assigns as error, first, that the court erred in refusing the said application to intervene, and second, that the court erred In granting the plaintiff's motion.
H. A. London & Son, R. H. Hayes, and W. D. Siler, for appellant.
N. Y. Gulley and R. H. Dixon, for appellee.
The petitioner, Dark, bases his right to intervene upon the ground that "the affiant is the owner of certain real property, which is a part of the propertydescribed In the complaint in this action, having paid a full and fair price for the same, and taken a deed therefor from H. A. London, W. D. Siler, and R. H. Hayes, who, as he is informed and believes, had purchased the same from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carpenter v. Carpenter
...128 N.C. 108, 38 S.E. 296; Martin v. Martin, 130 N.C. 27, 40 S.E. 822; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 132 N.C. 22, 43 S.E. 508; Johnson v. Johnson, 142 N.C. 462, 55 S.E. 341; Grant v. Grant, 159 N.C. 528, 75 S.E. 734; Woodruff v. Woodruff, supra; Young v. Young, Mrs. Shaver's affidavit attached to her......
-
Wills v. Wills
...N. C. 15, 37 S. E. 68;Clark v. Clark, 133 N. C. 28, 30, 45 S. E. 342;Kinney v. Kinney, 149 N. C. 321, 325, 63 S. E. 97;Johnson v. Johnson, 142 N. C. 462, 55 S. E. 341;Rayl v. Rayl (Tenn. Ch. App.) 64 S. W. 309;De Armond v. De Armond, 92 Tenn. 40, 20 S. W. 422. See, also, Rumpling v. Rumplin......
-
Wills v. Wills
... ... 765] ... E. 68; Clark v. Clark (1903), 133 N.C. 28, ... 30, 45 S.E. 342; Kinney v. Kinney (1908), ... 149 N.C. 321, 325, 63 S.E. 97; Johnson v ... Johnson (1906), 142 N.C. 462, 55 S.E. 341; ... Rayl v. Rayl (1900), 64 S.W. 309; ... DeArmond v. DeArmond (1892), 92 Tenn. 40, ... 20 S.W ... ...
-
Ellis v. Ellis
... ... accompany the complaint so as to give the court jurisdiction ... over a divorce proceeding. Johnson v. Johnson, 142 ... N.C. 462, 55 S.E. 341; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 132 N.C ... 22, 43 S.E. 508; Nichols v. Nichols, 128 N.C. 108, ... 38 S.E. 296 ... ...