Richardson v. Richardson, 611
Decision Date | 23 November 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 611,611 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Bertis Mae RICHARDSON v. Ernest McCain RICHARDSON. |
Ottway Burton, Asheboro, for plaintiff appellant.
Walker, Anderson, Bell & Ogburn, Asheboro, for defendant appellee.
Plaintiff's primary contention is that the court erred in granting defendant's motion for nonsuit.
With reference to the alleged abandonment: Plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that defendant, without any provocation by plaintiff, left the home on March 27, 1965, and thereafter lived elsewhere. Pertinent to what occurred on March 27, 1965, plaintiff testified:
One of the grounds for relief under G.S. § 50--16 exists '(i)f any husband shall separate himself from his wife and fail to provide her and the children of the marriage with the necessary subsistance according to his means and condition in life.' Defendant contends plaintiff's evidence discloses defendant had provided plaintiff and their son with subsistence and therefore nonsuit was proper.
G.S. § 50--16 also provides the wife is entitled to the relief prescribed therein if the husband 'be guilty of any misconduct or acts that would be or constitute cause for divorce, either absolute or from bed and board.'
Pruett v. Pruett, 247 N.C. 13, 23, 100 S.E.2d 296, 303. Accord: 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § 104; Nelson, Divorce and Annulment, Second Edition, Vol. I, § 4.05; Lee, North Carolina Family Law, Vol. 1, § 80, p. 305.
In Thurston v. Thurston, 256 N.C. 663, 124 S.E.2d 852, the defendant (husband) assigned as error the allowance of alimony and counsel fees Pendente lite. The order was based on a finding of fact 'that the defendant, without just cause or reason, and without adequate provocation on the part of the plaintiff, * * * wilfully and deliberately abandoned his family within the meaning of G.S. 50--7(1).' The Pendente lite order was affirmed. Higgins, J., after quoting with approval from Pruett v. Pruett, supra, stated: 'A defendant may not abandon his wife and defeat an action under G.S. § 50--7(1) by making voluntary payments which he may abandon at will.' In this connection, see Sguros v. Sguros, 252 N.C. 408, 114 S.E.2d 79.
In Deal v. Deal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schloss v. Schloss, 281
...the fact that, after cohabitation is brought to an end, he voluntarily provides her with adequate support. Richardson v. Richardson, 268 N.C. 538, 151 S.E.2d 12; Thurston v. Thurston, 256 N.C. 663, 124 S.E.2d 852; Pruett v. Pruett, 247 N.C. 13, 100 S.E.2d 296. Whether his withdrawal from th......
-
Brady v. Brady, 601
...or acts that would be or constitute cause for divorce, either absolute or from bed and board.' G.S. § 50--16; Richardson v. Richardson, 268 N.C. 538, 151 S.E.2d 12; Thurston v. Thurston, 256 N.C. 663, 124 S.E.2d 852. G.S. § 50--7 authorizes divorce from bed and board where either party (1) ......
-
Peoples v. Peoples
...There is a distinction between criminal abandonment and the matrimonial offense of desertion. In the case of Richardson v. Richardson, 268 N.C. 538, 151 S.E.2d 12 (1966), it is "G.S. 50--7 provides, as a ground for divorce from bed and board: '1. If either party abandons His or Her family.'......
-
Powell v. Powell, 757DC105
...to an end without justification, without the consent of the other spouse and without intent of renewing it. See, Richardson v. Richardson, 268 N.C. 538, 151 S.E.2d 12. One spouse may abandon the other without physically leaving the home. Bailey v. Bailey, 243 N.C. 412, 90 S.E.2d 696; McDowe......