Bond v. Bond
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gould v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission (N.C. 1957)
- Wells v. Wells (N.C. Ct. App. 1999)
- Sprinkle v. Sprinkle (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)
- Bridges Ex Rel. Bridges v. Jackson (N.C. 1961)
- Rowland v. Rowland (N.C. 1960)
- Columbus County v. Thompson (N.C. 1959)
- Clark v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. (N.C. 1958)
- State v. Robinson (N.C. 1958)
- City of Goldsboro v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (N.C. 1957)
- Bailey v. Bailey (N.C. 1956)
- Harrell v. Scheidt (N.C. 1956)
- State Ex Rel. North Carolina Utilities Commission v. Youngblood Truck Lines, Inc. (N.C. 1956)
- Dellinger v. Bollinger (N.C. 1955)
- Crowley v. McDougald (N.C. 1955)
- Flynt Ex Rel. Barefoot v. Flynt (N.C. 1953)
- State ex rel. Atkins v. Fortner (N.C. 1952)
- Town of Fremont v. Baker (N.C. 1952)
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
BOND
v.
BOND.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
L. J. Phipps, Chapel Hill, for plaintiff appellant.
Paul B. Edmundson, John S. Peacock, Goldsboro, and Bonner D. Sawyer, Hillsboro, for defendant appellee.
BARNHILL, Justice.
The exception to the judgment entered presents for decision only two questions: (1) Do the facts found support the judgment, and (2) does any error of law appear upon the face of the record? Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E.2d 609; Simmons v. Lee, 230 N.C. 216, 53 S.E.2d 79; and cases cited; National Surety Corp. v. Sharpe, 233 N.C. 642, 65 S.E.2d 138; *54 State v. Raynor, 235 N.C. 184, 69 S.E.2d 155.
Upon the findings made, the court correctly denied the motion for alimony pendente lite. But the cause was before the court for hearing of that motion only. It is so recited in the judgment. "It was not before the court on final hearing on the merits. Hence the court was without jurisdiction to dismiss the action * * *." Briggs v. Biggs, 234 N.C. 450, 67 S.E.2d 349.
The judgment entered must be modified so as to limit it to a denial of alimony pendente lite, and the cause must be reinstated on the docket for trial. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.