Pratt v. Bishop
Decision Date | 10 July 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 380,380 |
Parties | Geraldine F. PRATT for the adoption of Gerri Leigh Graham, v. George W. BISHOP. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Eugene H. Phillips, Winston-Salem, for respondent-appellant.
Deal, Hutchins & Minor, Winston-Salem, for petitioner-appellee.
Respondent asked for a dismissal of this adoption proceeding or for a new trial on the basis of eighteen groupings of assignments of error. Only those which are properly presented will be expressly considered.
Assignments Nos. 3 and 5 through 8 relate to alleged errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence. We quote Assignment No. 7 which is typical:
'As shown by Exceptions Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, and 45 (R. pp. 126, 127, 128 and 140).'
The following statement from Nichols v. McFarland, 249 N.C. 125, 105 S.E.2d 294 is applicable here:
Assignments of error Nos. 9 through 16 relate to alleged errors of commission or omission in the charge. As this court said in Darden v. Bone, 254 N.C. 599, 601, 119 S.E.2d 634, 636:
(Citing cases)
Travis v. Johnston, 244 N.C. 713, 95 S.E.2d 94, 96. What the Court requires is that exceptions which are presented to the Court for decision shall be stated clearly and intelligibly by the assignment of error, and not be referring to the record, and therewith there shall be set out so much of the evidence or other matter of circumstance as shall be necessary to present clearly the matter to be debated. In this way the scope of inquiry is narrowed to the identical points which the appellant thinks are material and essential, and the Court is not sent scurrying through the entire record to find the matters complained of.'
Assignment of error No. 4 is to the failure of the court to permit each paragraph of respondent's answer to be read to the jury. The assignment of error itself does not disclose which paragraphs were not read to the jury. However, it appears from an examination of the record that only paragraph 15 of the petition was read to the jury. Paragraph 15 alleged that Gerri Bishop was an abandoned child and raised the one issue in the case. Paragraph 15 of respondent's answer which denied the alleged abandonment was read to the jury. His further answer was likewise read except for certain portions which were clearly improper pleadings and which would have been stricken upon motion. No conceivable prejudice could have resulted to the respondent from the ruling of the court of which he complains in purported assignment of error No. 4.
The failure of the respondent to comply with the rules of practice limits consideration to assignments of error Nos. 1, 2, 3, 17 and 19. There is no assignment No. 18 in the record.
Respondent's assignment of error No. 1 is to the order of the judge overruling his demurrer to the petition. The demurrer is in writing and the only ground specified therein is 'that no cause of action is stated in accordance with the laws governing adoption.' G.S. § 1-128 declares that a demurrer must distinctly specify the grounds of the objection or it may be disregarded. A demurrer which merely charges that the petition does not state a cause of action is broadside and will be disregarded. Duke v. Campbell, 233 N.C. 262, 63 S.E.2d 555. However, in his assignment of error and brief, respondent states that the ground for the demurrer is that the petition contains no allegation substantially in the words of General Statutes 48-2(3) that respondent had wilfully abandoned the child for at least six consecutive months immediately preceding the institution of the action. In paragraph 15 petitioner clearly intended to allege that respondent had abandoned the child since birth. It would have been the better practice, and required fewer words, had petitioner alleged that Gerri Bishop was an abandoned child within the definition of the statute. Smith v. Crivello, 338 Ill.App. 503, 88 N.E.2d 107. Nevertheless, interpreting paragraph 15 of the petition liberally as we are required to do upon a demurrer, it is apparent that petitioner has sufficiently alleged the ultimate jurisdictional fact that Gerri was an abandoned child at the time of the institution of the proceeding. Long v. Love, 230 N.C. 535, 53 S.E.2d 661. Having alleged it, the burden then devolved upon the petitioner to prove at the trial the abandonment in conformity with the statute, i. e., that respondent had wilfully abandoned Gerri for at least six consecutive months immediately prior to the institution of the proceedings. This was the sole issue in the trial in the Superior Court. The adoption statute does not place the allegation with reference to abandonment in the same category as the divorce statute, G.S. § 50-8, places the allegation of residence and knowledge of the grounds of divorce. The demurrer was properly overruled and assignment of error No. 1 is not sustained.
In this court the respondent demurred ore tenus to the complaint because it showed that the mother's written consent to the adoption had not been executed at the time the petition was filed. The petition alleged in paragraph 12 that the mother had orally consented to the adoption and that her written consent would be filed. The record shows that her written consent was filed five days later. G.S. § 48-15(12) requires that the petition shall state 'that there has been full compliance with the law in regard to consent to adoption.' The respondent, in his answer to paragraph 12 of the petition which he verified on the 14th day of August, 1959, admitted that the mother had filed a written consent to the adoption. By this admission respondent supplied the omission in the petition and cured the defect. 71 C.J.S. Pleading § 590b; Johnson v. Finch, 93 N.C. 205; Shuford v. Phillips, 235 N.C. 387, 70 S.E.2d 193; Cox v. Hennis Freight Lines, 236 N.C. 72, 72 S.E.2d 25. The demurrer ore tenus is overruled.
Assignment of error No. 2 is to the failure of the judge to nonsuit the proceeding 'in that no evidence was before the court, that respondent wilfully abandoned said child for six consecutive months immediately preceding the filing of the action as required by law.' The effect of assignment of error No. 17 which relates to the judge's charge, is to allege that the failure of the judge to direct a verdict in favor of the respondent on the same grounds as specified in the motion of nonsuit was error. These two assignments will be considered together.
G.S. § 48-2 defines an abandoned child as 'any child under the age of eighteen years who has been willfully abandoned at least six consecutive months immediately preceding the institution of an action or proceeding to declare the child to be an abandoned child.'
This court in Truelove v. Parker, 191 N.C. 430, 438, 132 S.E. 295, discussed the abandonment which would remove the necessity for a parent's consent. In the Truelove case the mother of the child was never made a party to the adoption proceeding. Her written consent was not secured and there was no judicial determination of abandonment. In that opinion we find the following:
To frame a precise definition of abandonment which would cover all cases would be difficult indeed. The most frequently approved definition is that abandonment imports any wilful or intentional conduct on the part of the parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child. 35 A.L.R.2d, Anno.: Adoption-Abandoned or Deserted Child, 662, 665, 668; 2 C.J.S. Adoption of Children § 21d(2). Wilful intent is an integral part of abandonment and this is a question of fact to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Fox
...N.C. 123, 171 S.E.2d 416; State v. Benton, 276 N.C. 641, 174 S.E.2d 793; State v. Douglas, 268 N.C. 267, 150 S.E.2d 412; Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486, 126 S.E.2d 597; Darden v. Bone, 254 N.C. 599, 119 S.E.2d 634; Bridges v. Graham, 246 N.C. 371, 98 S.E.2d Although the foregoing three assig......
-
In re J.T.C.
...of fact. Our courts have held the willfulness of parent's conduct to be a question of fact rather than law. Pratt v. Bishop , 257 N.C. 486, 501, 126 S.E.2d 597, 608 (1962). Conclusion 4 thus amounts to an ultimate finding by the trial court, based on inferences drawn from the evidence and R......
-
Maraman v. Cooper Steel Fabricators
...lengths to concoct a story that would explain his wound ... [evidence of] guilty knowledge"); see also Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486, 506, 126 S.E.2d 597, 611 (1962)(quoting Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., § 278) (in civil case, "`a party's fabrication or suppression of evidence..., and all s......
-
In re J.A.J.
...the opportunity to display filial affection, and wil[l]fully neglects to lend support and maintenance." Pratt ex rel. Graham v. Bishop , 257 N.C. 486, 501, 126 S.E.2d 597 (1962). ¶ 30 "Although a parent's options for showing affection while incarcerated are greatly limited, a parent will no......
-
Nonproduction of Witnesses as Deliberative Evidence
...153 U.S. 216, 225-26 (1894) (White, J.). 11. Lamin v. McTighe, 72 Wash. 2d 587, 593, 434 P.2d 565, 569 (1967). See Pratt v. Bishop, 257 N.C. 486, 126 S.E.2d 597 (1962). It is perhaps too obvious to merit citation that the "actions" must appear of record. See, e.g., Long v. United States, 42......