Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 N.C. 113

Griffith v. . Griffith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 5, 1883

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1883-10-05

Civil ACTION for divorce a mensa et thoro heard afc Spring Term, 1883, of Mitchell Superior Court, before Gudger, J. Upon the complaint and affidavit of the plaintiff, His Honor made an order for alimony pendente lite, and thereupon the defendant moved to vacate the order upon the ground of a want of notice to him, and the court sustained the motion.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-10-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1964

3 state decisions

10188318901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MeRRIMON, J.

¶1 The plaintiff not only alleges in general terms that the defendant has abandoned her, that he has in effect turned her out of doors, that he has treated her cruelly and barbarously, so as to endanger her life, and has offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome, but she avers facts in detail, that, if she can prove them to be true, certainly make a strong case in her favor, and the case contemplated by the statute, on which relief ought to be granted. Ti-ie Code, §1286.

¶2 The court did not find that the allegations in the complaint were true or otherwise, and we must take it that it denied the *115 motion for alimony pendente lite, upon the ground, that upon the face of the complaint the plaintiff did “not state facts sufficient to constitute a causo of action.”

¶3 In this we think the court erred. The facts alleged do constitute a cause of action, and the court ought to have proceeded to find whether the allegations -were substantially true or false. The motion is not granted simply upon the complaint and affidavits of the plaintiff. Before the court can grant it, it must find the facts alleged in the complaint “ to be true and to entitle her to the relief demanded in the complaint,” and such findings of the court must be set forth in the record, to the end, either party may, if he or she shall sec fit, appeal to this court. The defendant will be entitled to be heard in reply to the complaint, by answer or affidavits. The Code, §1291; Morriss v. Morriss, ante; Erwin v. Erwin, 4 Jones’ Eq., 82.

¶4 There is error; the order denying the motion must be reversed.

¶5 Error. Reversed.

/89/nc/113 · .json · Public domain