{
  "id": 8555994,
  "name": "RUTH ELIZABETH SINK v. BROOKS GRAY SINK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sink v. Sink",
  "decision_date": "1971-06-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 7121DC379",
  "first_page": "549",
  "last_page": "550",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 549"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "179 S.E. 2d 396",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559876
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0153-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 3496,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8375217344594827e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7216075145693822
    },
    "sha256": "13170b961896c42dbf9b243d17050978c5acac7594a37cd8ee9bc3f0c17f832f",
    "simhash": "1:8d48026647cc855b",
    "word_count": 566
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:46.806740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "RUTH ELIZABETH SINK v. BROOKS GRAY SINK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nIn the judgment appealed from the trial judge made findings of fact. The motion for a directed verdict in a jury trial presents the question whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, was sufficient for submission to the jury. \u201cIn resolving this question, it was not required or appropriate that the trial court make \u2018Findings of Fact\u2019 and state \u2018Conclusions of Law.5 To pass upon the single question of law presented, namely, the sufficiency of plaintiff\u2019s evidence to withstand defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict, we must look to the evidence and base decision thereon without regard to the trial court\u2019s \u2018Findings of Fact5 and \u2018Conclusions of Law.\u2019 \u201d Kelly v. Harvester Co., 278 N.C. 153, 179 S.E. 2d 396.\nReview of the record in the present case reveals that the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient to require that the case be submitted to the jury on her action for divorce from bed and board. It may well be, as defendant\u2019s attorney states in his brief on this appeal, that \u201ca steady job, less temper tantrums, and the adoption of the Golden Rule would appear to be in order in this cause, rather than further litigation.\u201d However, until the parties themselves bring those desirable elements into the matter, they are entitled to have their cause tried in accordance with established procedures. There being sufficient evidence to require submission of plaintiff\u2019s action for divorce from bed and board to the jury, the judgment directing verdict against her in that cause is\nReversed.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Surratt & Early, by James H. Early, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.",
      "James J. Booker for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RUTH ELIZABETH SINK v. BROOKS GRAY SINK\nNo. 7121DC379\n(Filed 23 June 1971)\n1. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 SO\u2014 motion for directed verdict \u2014 question presented\nThe motion for a directed verdict in a jury trial presents the question whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, was sufficient for submission to the jury.\n2. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 50; Appeal and Error \u00a7 59\u2014 motion for directed verdict \u2014 scope of appellate review\nIn passing upon the sufficiency of plaintiff\u2019s evidence to withstand defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict, the appellate court must look to the evidence and base decision thereon without regard to the trial court\u2019s \u201cFindings of Fact\u201d and \u201cConclusions of Law.\u201d\nAppeal by plaintiff from Henderson, District Judge, 15 February 1971 Session of District Court held in Forsyth County.\nPlaintiff wife sued defendant husband, seeking a divorce from bed and board, custody of their youngest child, support for the child, alimony, counsel fees, and other relief. She alleged abandonment, failure to provide adequate support, and various indignities to her person committed by defendant without provocation on her part. Defendant husband filed answer denying misconduct on his part, and in a further answer and counterclaim alleged various indignities to his person committed by the wife without provocation on his part. Defendant prayed for a divorce from bed and board, custody of the child, and other relief. At the close of the evidence the court directed verdict for defendant on plaintiff\u2019s action for divorce from bed and board and directed verdict for plaintiff on defendant\u2019s counterclaim. Plaintiff appealed.\nSurratt & Early, by James H. Early, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nJames J. Booker for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0549-01",
  "first_page_order": 573,
  "last_page_order": 574
}