Dawson v. . Dawson
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Shore Ex Rel. Welborn v. Shore (N.C. 1942)
- Rickenbaker v. Rickenbaker (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
- Rickert v. Rickert (N.C. 1972)
- Morris v. Wilkins (N.C. 1955)
- Reece v. Reece (N.C. 1949)
- Jenkins v. . Jenkins (N.C. 1945)
- Edmundson v. Edmundson (N.C. 1942)
- Silver v. . Silver (N.C. 1941)
- Adams v. . Adams (N.C. 1937)
- Adams v. Adams (N.C. 1937)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant’s motion for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees is not supported under C. S., 1666, either by sufficient allegations or adequate factual findings. Vaughan v. Vaughan, ante, 354; Horton v. Horton, 186 N. C., 332, 119 S. E., 490; White v. White, 179 N. C., 592, 103 S. E., 216; Webber v. Webber, 79 N. C., 572; Miller v. Miller, 75 N. C., 70. It was said in Moore v. Moore, 130 N. C., 333, 41 S. E., 943, that upon application for alimony pendente lite under C. S., 1666, “whether the wife is entitled to alimony is a question of law upon the facts found,” reviewable on appeal by either party, and “the court below must find the facts.” Caudle v. Caudle, 206 N. C., 484, 174 S. E., 304. Not until the facts are found can we determine the correctness of the ruling as a matter of law. McManus v. McManus, 191 N. C., 740, 133 S. E., 9.
Nor can the. order be upheld as upon an application for alimony without divorce under C. S., 1667. This section “only applies to independent suits for alimony.” Skittletharpe v. Skittletharpe, 130 N. C., 72, 40 S. E., 851; Reeves v. Reeves, 82 N. C., 348.
Error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.