Walker v. Walker
| Decision Date | 27 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 650.,650. |
| Citation | 159 S.E. 363 |
| Parties | WALKER. v. WALKER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Action by John W. Walker against Edith Mae Walker. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
No error.
This is a civil action for divorce. The issues submitted to the jury, and their answers thereto, wereas follows:
J. D. Mallonee and D. Witherspoon, both of Murphy, for appellant.
Hill & Gray and Moody & Moody, all of Murphy, for appellee.
This action was before this court on demurrer, Walker v. Walker, 19S N. C. 826, 153 S. E. 927. The demurrer was overruled in the court below, and on appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed.
We have read the record carefully, and the able briefs of the parties to this action. The allegations of the complaint of plaintiff set forth several alleged causes of action against the defendant for divorce absolute. The record discloses that, at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, "the Court sustains the motion as to all the causes, except as to the cause of adultery, and signed the judgment sustaining the motion as to all of such other causes." The court below sustaining the defendant's motion eliminated many matters set forth in the complaint. The only material issue left for the jury to determine was that of defendant's adultery since her marriage with plaintiff. From the view we take of the evidence on this record, it is, as it were, sewer filth, and we see no good that would come by the recital of the evidence and setting forth the law applicable to the facts. We think the evidence was competent on the question of adultery and sufficient to be submitted to the jury. Plaintiff's charge against defendant was adultery; if the evidence of so serious a charge was not true, the defendant had the opportunity to refute it. Whether the charge was true or not, the falsity of it was peculiarly within defendant's knowledge. The fact that she did not refute the damaging charge made by plaintiff, it may be that this was a silent admission of the charge made against her.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
York v. York
...rule of the Hudson Case, supra, has been repeatedly approved and followed in recent cases decided by this court. See Walker v. Walker, 201 N.C. 183, 184, 159 S.E. 363; Puckett v. Dyer, 203 N.C. 684, 690, 167 S.E. 43; Maxwell v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., 204 N.C. 309, 316, 168 S.E. ......
-
Aapco, Inc. v. Smalley
...701-702, 194 S.E. 486, 490 (1938) and Cuthell v. Greene, 229 N.C. 475, 481-82, 50 S.E.2d 525, 529 (1948)); see also Walker v. Walker, 201 N.C. 183, 159 S.E. 363 (1931). Upon careful review we find there is sufficient record evidence that defendant Verna Smalley acted as an agent for defenda......
-
Maxwell v. Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co.
... ... behalf of the defendant company. There was evidence ... introduced later to show the agency aliunde ... In ... Walker v. Walker, 201 N.C. at page 184, 159 S.E ... 363, 364, we find: "Whether the charge was true or not, ... the falsity of it was peculiarly within ... ...
-
Walker v. Walker
...installments for child's support, the receiver, surety, and executors of deceased surety appeal. Modified and affirmed. See, also, 201 N. C. 183, 159 S. E. 363. After signing a decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony between John W. Walker and Ruth P. Walker, Judge Bryson made an order on ......