Lea v. . Lea
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Marriage and Divorce — Alimony—Notice of Motion — Findings of Fact. This was a Motion for Alimony pendente lite, heard before Broten, J., at RANDOLPH Superior Court, Spring Term, 1889. The plaintiff served notice on the defendant on the 21st day of September, 1888, to appear at Troy, Montgomery County on the 3d day of October, 1888, to show cause why alimony should not be allowed her, pending this suit.
Read the full summary
Marriage and Divorce — Alimony—Notice of Motion — Findings of Fact. This was a Motion for Alimony pendente lite, heard before Broten, J., at RANDOLPH Superior Court, Spring Term, 1889. The plaintiff served notice on the defendant on the 21st day of September, 1888, to appear at Troy, Montgomery County on the 3d day of October, 1888, to show cause why alimony should not be allowed her, pending this suit. By agreement of counsel of plaintiff and defendant, the hearing tvas adjourned from Troy to Albemarle, in Stanly County, to be heard on the 17th day of October, 1888, on which day the…
1Opinion of the Court
Shepherd, J.:
The defendant denies his liability for alimony pendente lite, for the reason that this is not, technically, an action for divorce from the bonds of matrimony, but an action to declare a marriage void because of a prior existing marriage on the part of the defendant.
At common law, suits for nulliiy were freely entertained in the ecclesiastical courts, and, while they were unnecessary in cases like the present, so far as they affected the actual legal relations of the parties, it was deemed “expedient to procure a sentence to prevent the consequences which might, in future, take…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Fulton v. VickeryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Whitney v. WhitneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
- Bancroft v. BancroftCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Jones v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Arey v. AreyWashington Supreme Court · 1900
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.