Legal Opinion

Johnson v. . Allen

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1888PublishedCited by 25 opinions

Civil action, tried before Shepherd, J., at November Term, 1887, of the Superior Court of Orange. The facts sufficiently appeaqjin the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMerrimon, J.

The purpose of this action is to recover damages from the defendant, for “enticing, harboring, and debauching the plaintiff’s wife.” On the trial, the plaintiff was examined as a witness in his own behalf. Pie testified as to his relations with his wife, and the interference of the defendant therewith, and further, “ that his said wife sued him for a divorce, ‘ a mensa et thoro,’ the summons being dated July 10th, 1885, and the case came on for trial at March Term, 1886, of this Court, when the said wife, after testifying in her own behalf, submitted to a nonsuit. Plaintiff’s counsel asked…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. . BrittainSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
  2. State v. . EflerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
  3. State v. . BallardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  4. State v. . SmallwoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  5. Carolina Central Railroad v. McCaskillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. State v. BattleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  2. Powell v. StricklandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  3. In re Merriman's AppealMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Powell v. . StricklandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  5. State v. HollingsworthSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

20 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