Legal Opinion

Carnes v. . Carnes

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 10, 1933PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Nothing but the record proper — summons, pleadings, verdict and judgment — has been sent up as the case on appeal. It contains none of the evidence or the charge of the court. Hence, the anomaly of the judgment granting a divorce a mensa et thoro to both parties at the same time, is not before us for consideration. Only the party injured is entitled to a divorce from bed and board under C. S., 1660. Sanderson v. Sanderson, 178 N. C., 339, 100 S. E., 590. See, also, Reeves v. Reeves, 203 N. C., 792. Evidently, the jury took the view that both parties had been injured.

It may be doubted whether…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Martin v. Martin.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
  2. Nichols v. Nichols.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
  3. Jackson v. . JacksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  4. Dowdy v. . DowdySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  5. White v. . WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Vaughan v. . VaughanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  2. Crenshaw v. CrenshawMontana Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Brooks v. . BrooksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  4. Pollard v. . PollardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Allen v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

12 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