Sumner v. Sumner
Decision Date | 17 September 1947 |
Docket Number | 94 |
Citation | 44 S.E.2d 40,227 N.C. 610 |
Parties | SUMNER v. SUMNER. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Plaintiff instituted this action for divorce on the grounds of two years' separation. The defendant filed answer in which she (1) pleads recrimination, (2) alleges a cross action for divorce a mensa under G.S. s 50-7 subsections 3 and 4, and (3) prays alimony and attorneys' fees.
Issues were submitted to and answered by the jury as follows:
'1. Were the plaintiff and the defendant legally married, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
'2. Have the plaintiff and the defendant lived separately and apart from each other for two years next preceding the institution of this action? Answer: Yes.
'3. Has the plaintiff been a resident of the State of North Carolina immediately preceding the institution of this action for six months? Answer: Yes.
'4. Was the separation between the plaintiff and the defendant caused by the unlawful and wrongful conduct and treatment by the plaintiff of the defendant? Answer: Yes.
'5. Did the plaintiff endanger the life of the defendant by his cruel and barbarous treatment of her, as alleged in the answer and cross-action? Answer: Yes.
'6. Did the plaintiff offer such indignities to the person of the defendant as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome? Answer: Yes.
'7. Did the plaintiff abandon the defendant, as alleged in the answer and cross-action? Answer: ____
Thereupon the court entered judgment (1) granting defendant a divorce a mensa and (2) requiring the plaintiff to make payments of alimony as therein set out. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.
P H. Bell, of Plymouth, for plaintiff appellant.
Fountain & Fountain, of Tarboro, for defendant appellee.
The record discloses the following as the concluding instruction of the court:
'Upon prompting by counsel for the plaintiff, I have this to say further:
'Plaintiff excepts to foregoing portion of charge in parentheses.
'Court: Is that what you asked for, Attorney Bell?
'Attorney Bell: Yes, sir, and would entitle him to a divorce, your Honor.
'Plaintiff excepts to foregoing portion of charge in parentheses.
It is apparent the court below inadvertently, for a moment, got the relation of the parties to the action reversed and spoke under the impression the husband was the defendant. The burden of proof on the fourth, fifth, and sixth issues is on the defendant. The quoted charge places it upon the plaintiff. This must be held for error.
As the plaintiff does not bring forward any exception to the prior instruction of the court as to the burden of proof, we may assume that it had correctly charged on this question. Even so this does not temper the prejudicial nature of the error. State v. Absher, 226 N.C. 656, 40 S.E. 26.
As was said in State v. Overcash, 226 N.C. 632, 39 S.E.2d 810, 811: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial