Duffy v. . Duffy
Supreme Court of North Carolina
ActioN for divorce, tried before Holce, J., and a jury, at January Special Term, 1897, of Foksyth Superior Court. Upon a finding by tbe jury that defendant had, prior to March 13, 1896, abandoned and lived separate and apart from plaintiff for two consecutive years, an absolute divorce was granted the plaintiff, who, thereupon, moved for an allowance for her future support, liis Honor denied the motion on the ground that the court had no power to make such allowance and…
Read the full summary
ActioN for divorce, tried before Holce, J., and a jury, at January Special Term, 1897, of Foksyth Superior Court. Upon a finding by tbe jury that defendant had, prior to March 13, 1896, abandoned and lived separate and apart from plaintiff for two consecutive years, an absolute divorce was granted the plaintiff, who, thereupon, moved for an allowance for her future support, liis Honor denied the motion on the ground that the court had no power to make such allowance and plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Faircloth, C. J.:
The plaintiff sued for and obtained a -judgment “that the bonds of matrimony between plaintiff and defendant be dissolved as to this plaintiff.” The plaintiff then moved for an order and judgment for an allowance by the month or in gross for her future support. His Honor held, as a matter of law, that he had no power to make an order for future support of the plaintiff. This is the only question before us in this appeal, and there was no error in his Honor’s conclusion.
At common law, where a divorce a vinculo matrimonii was granted, no allowance for the future support of the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Stanley v. . StanleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Crews v. . CrewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
- Feldman v. FeldmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Lockman v. . LockmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- Lockman v. LockmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.