Legal Opinion

Bolin v. Bolin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 28, 1955PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeNNY, J.

It is difficult to understand why the plaintiff appealed from the ruling of the court below on the defendant’s motion to strike, lie still has in his pleadings his plea with respect to acts of adultery committed by the defendant, for whatever purpose it may serve in connection with any motion that might be made for alimony pendente lite. G.S. 50-15; Medlin v. Medlin, 175 N.C. 529, 95 S.E. 857; Oldham v. Oldham, 225 N.C. 476, 35 S.E. 2d 332. A plea of adultery, however, if found by the court to be true, does not preclude the court from allowing the wife reasonable counsel fees for the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Parrish v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. Holloway v. . HollowaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  3. Medlin v. . MedlinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  4. Oldham v. . OldhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  5. Tucker v. TransouSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Branon v. BranonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. McDaniel v. FordhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API