Long v. Long
| Decision Date | 20 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | 96. |
| Parties | LONG v. LONG. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wilson County; Barnhill, Judge.
Action by Sherman E. Long against Anna W. Long. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
On October 26, 1933, the plaintiff instituted an action for the purpose of securing an absolute divorce from the defendant his wife. It was alleged that the parties were married on March 14, 1929, It was further alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant had lived separate and apart for more than two years. The summons was personally served but no answer was filed by the defendant.
The trial judge submitted the following issues:
(1) Were the plaintiff and the defendant duly married as alleged?
(2) Have the plaintiff and the defendant lived separate and apart for two years next preceding the filing of the complaint?
(3) Has the plaintiff been a resident of the state of North Carolina for one year next preceding the filing of complaint?
(4) Is the plaintiff the party injured?
The jury answered the first three issues "Yes," and the fourth issue "No."
Thereupon the following judgment was entered:
"This is an action for divorce instituted by the plaintiff, a resident of Person County, against the defendant, a resident of Durham County, in the Wilson County Superior Court. The cause comes on to be heard before the undersigned Judge and a jury, and being heard, the jury answered the issues as will appear of record. The plaintiff having testified that he married the defendant under threat of prosecution for seduction, he at the time being the father of the defendant's unborn child, and that after the marriage he refused to live with the defendant and did not provide her with any home or otherwise make provision for her to live with him, the jury answered the fourth issue, No, the Court being of the opinion that the statute which gives either party the right to sue for a divorce upon two years separation is invalid and unconstitutional insofar as it gives the person who commits the wrong the right to take advantage of his own wrong and thereby sever the marital contract and defeat the defendant of any property right she may have in the plaintiff's estate orders and adjudges that the relief prayed for by the plaintiff be and the same is hereby denied.
It is further ordered and adjudged that the marriage contract between the plaintiff and defendant is still a valid subsisting contract.
It is further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff pay the costs of this action."
It appears that on June 4, 1929, the plaintiff and the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byers v. Byers
... ... cases arising under the 1931 Act, as amended in 1933, it was ... held that the applicant for divorce need not be "the ... injured party". Long v. Long, 206 N.C. 706, 175 ... S.E. 85, 86; Campbell v. Campbell, 207 N.C. 859, 176 ... S.E. 250. In neither of these cases, however, was there a ... ...
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...The separation contemplated by the statute is apparently unrestricted. Lockhart v. Lockhart, 223 N.C. 559, 27 S.E.2d 444; Long v. Long, 206 N.C. 706, 175 S.E. 85. It is unnecessary to set out in the complaint the cause the separation, or to allege that it was without fault on the part of th......
-
Gerdts v. Gerdts
...113 So. 852; Stallings v. Stallings, 177 La. 488, 148 So. 687; George v. George, 56 Nev. 12, 41 P.2d 1059, 97 A.L.R. 983; Long v. Long, 206 N.C. 706, 175 S.E. 85; McKenna v. McKenna, 53 R.I. 373, 166 A. 822. The ground for absolute divorce reads: "Continuous separation under a decree of lim......
-
Faleide v. Faleide
...after the separation had continued for more than two years. See also White v. Broussard, 206 La. 25, 18 So.2d 641. In Long v. Long, 206 N.C. 706, 175 S.E. 85, it held that to secure an absolute divorce upon the ground of two years separation as provided by statute, the applicant for divorce......