Legal Opinion

Caudle v. . Caudle

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 2, 1934PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

It was said in Moore v. Moore, 130 N. C., 333, 41 S. E., 943, that upon application for alimony pendente lite under C. S., 1666, “whether the wife is entitled to alimony is a question of law upon the facts found,” reviewable on appeal by either party, and the “court below must find the facts” upon request. ■

The court erred, therefore, in declining to find the facts. Not until the facts are found can we determine the correctness of the ruling as a matter of law. McManus v. McManus, 191 N. C., 740, 133 S. E., 9.

It should be observed, perhaps, that plaintiff makes her application under C. S.,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moore v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
  2. McManus v. . McManusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. Price v. . PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  4. Moore v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1902

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Rickert v. RickertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  3. Vaughan v. . VaughanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  4. Holloway v. . HollowaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  5. Dawson v. . DawsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API