Legal Opinion

Feldman v. Feldman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 6, 1953No. 674PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaRNHill, J.

Allowance of alimony payable after a decree of divorce a vinculo was unknown to the common law. Duffy v. Duffy, 120 N.C. 346; Lockman v. Lockman, 220 N.C. 95, 16 S.E. 2d 670; Gavit Black. Com., pp. 188, 189.

“At common law, where a divorce a vinculo matrimonii was granted, no allowance for the future support of the wife was given, and we have no statute in this State allowing it.” Duffy v. Duffy, supra; Crews v. Crews, 175 N.C. 168, 95 S.E. 149; Hobbs v. Holls, 218 N.C. 468, 11 S.E. 2d 311; Stanley v. Stanley, 226 N.C. 129, 37 S.E. 2d 118; Anno. 166 A.L.R. 1004.

As the right did not exist at…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. McRary v. . McRarySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  2. McRary v. McRarySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  3. Stanley v. . StanleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  4. Crews v. . CrewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  5. Cooke v. CookeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. In re T.R.P.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2006
  2. Yow v. YowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Beres v. BeresSuperior Court of Delaware · 1959
  4. Rayfield v. RayfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  5. Haynes v. HaynesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

13 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