Winfield v. Winfield
| Decision Date | 26 November 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 521.,521. |
| Citation | 228 N.C. 256,45 S.E.2d 259 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WINFIELD. v. WINFIELD. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Geo. B. Patton, Special Judge.
Civil action for divorce and for custody of a child and motion for partial support by Virginia Elizabeth Presslar Winfield against Henry Boyce Winfield. From an order requiring support for the child and counsel fees pendente lite, defendant appeals.
Order affirmed.
Civil action for absolute divorce on ground of two years separation, for custody of six-year-old child of the marriage, and motion after verdict for his support.
The complaint, filed 6 September, 1945, alleges that plaintiff and defendant were married on 16 October, 1932; that one child was born of the marriage, 22 July, 1939, named Henry Boyce Winfield, Jr.; that by mutual consent and agreement, the plaintiff and defendant separated in December, 1942, and have lived continuously in a state of separation since that time; that the plaintiff is entitled to the custody of the child and to an order providing for his support. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for divorce, for custody of the child and for his support.
The defendant filed no answer.
At a Special October Term, commencing on 15 October, 1945, Mecklenburg Superior Court, judgment of absolute divorce was entered on a verdict. In this judgment, no provision was made in respect of the custody of the child or his support.
Thereafter, on 8 April, 1947, plaintiff filed motion in the cause to require the defendant to contribute to the support of Henry Boyce Winfield, Jr., who, on account of a severe burn, had been hospitalized and still needed medical care.
On 5 May, 1947, the defendant, in answer to the motion, filed affidavit denying the paternity of the child and demanded a jury trial on the issue. The matter was, by order of the Presiding Judge, transferred to the civil issue docket for trial.
At the same time, it was adjudged that the defendant should pay $9 a week pendente lite for the support of the child and $100 to be applied on counsel fees.
From this order for support and counsel fees pendente lite, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.
H. L. Strickland, of Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellee.
McRae & McRae, of Charlotte, for defendant, appellant.
While the plaintiff objected to the order transferring the issue of paternity to the civil issue docket for trial, no exception was noted to this part of the judgment Hence, the correctness of the order is without challenge on the instant record. Nor is the sufficiency of the defendant's affidavit to raise the issue presently presented. The only question is the correctness of the order, entered on plaintiff's motion, making partial provision for the child's support and for part payment on counsel fees.
In the case of Green v. Green, 210 N.C. 147, 185 S.E. 651,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanback v. Stanback
...were required to account for expenditures and refund any excess. Such an order is proper when authorized by statute. Winfield v. Winfield, 228 N.C. 256, 45 S.E.2d 259 (1947); Green v. Green, 210 N.C. 147, 185 S.E. 651 We find appropriate authority for the order in G.S. § 50--13.6. That stat......
-
Cox v. Cox
...action. G.S. § 50-13. Reece v. Reece, 231 N.C. 321, 56 S.E.2d 641; Robbins v. Robbins, 229 N.C. 430, 50 S.E.2d 183; Winfield v. Winfield, 228 N.C. 256, 45 S.E.2d 259; Story v. Story, 221 N.C. 114, 19 S.E.2d Therefore, when the plaintiff wife instituted the instant action for divorce, the co......
-
Reece v. Reece
...children born of the marriage rests exclusively in the court before whom the divorce action is pending. G.S. § 50-13; Winfield v. Winfield, 228 N.C. 256, 45 S.E. 2d 259; Robbins v. Robbins, 229 N.C. 430, 50 S.E.2d 183; Phipps v. Vannoy, 229 N.C. 629, 50 S.E.2d 906. The plaintiff here must p......
-
Carter v. Carter, 386
...for the education and maintenance of the 'minor children of the marriage' which is the subject matter of the action. Winfield v. Winfield, 228 N.C. 256, 45 S.E.2d 259. In part these two sections of our statutes regulate the family circle and define the rights and responsibilities of members......