From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Black v. Black

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1929
150 S.E. 925 (N.C. 1929)

Opinion

(Filed 27 November, 1929.)

APPEAL by defendant from Sink, Special Judge, at September Special Term, 1929, of MECKLENBURG.

Whitlock, Dockery Shaw for plaintiff.

T. L. Kirkpatrick and Stewart, McRae Bobbitt for defendant.


Application for alimony without divorce.

From an order awarding an allowance, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.


The allegations of the complaint, which the judge finds to be true for the purposes of his order, are sufficient to warrant an allowance for the wife's necessary subsistence and counsel fees as authorized by C. S., 1667, as amended by chapter 123, Public Laws 1921, and chapter 52, Public Laws 1923.

It would serve no useful purpose to set out the facts in detail. See Byerly v. Byerly, 194 N.C. 532, 140 S.E. 158; McManus v. McManus, 191 N.C. 740, 133 S.E. 9; Price v. Price, 188 N.C. 640, 125 S.E. 264; Allen v. Allen, 180 N.C. 465, 105 S.E. 11.

The order will be upheld.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Black v. Black

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1929
150 S.E. 925 (N.C. 1929)
Case details for

Black v. Black

Case Details

Full title:WINNIE WITHERS BLACK v. C. O. BLACK

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Nov 1, 1929

Citations

150 S.E. 925 (N.C. 1929)
150 S.E. 925

Citing Cases

Leroy v. Saliba

Appeal dismissed. Cited: Teal v. Liles, 183 N.C. 679; Nissen v. Nissen, 198 N.C. 809; Cole v. Trust Co., 221…

Goodman v. Goodman

There is no specific requirement in the latter section ( Allen v. Allen, 180 N.C. 465, 105 S.E. 11), as there…