Legal Opinion
Phillips v. . Phillips
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided June 2, 1943PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.
"We do not understand that it is contended that subsistence and counsel fees pendente lite may not now be allowed under C. S., 1667, authorizing an action for alimony without divorce. The original Act of 1871-72 did not so provide; but successive amendments by ch. 24, Public Laws of 1919, and ch. 123, Public Laws of 1921, permitted an allowance of subsistence and of counsel fees pending the hearing on the
issues. See history of this legislation per Adams, J., in Moore v. Moore, 185 N. C., 332, 335, 117 S. E., 12; Peele v. Peele, 216 N. C., 298, 4 S. E. (2d), 616; Holloway v. Holloway, 214 N.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Holloway v. . HollowaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Price v. . PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Moore v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Matney v. CombsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1938
- Kinney v. . KinneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Fogartie v. FogartieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Deal v. DealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Ipock v. IpockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Bumgarner v. BumgarnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.