{
  "id": 11272447,
  "name": "MARTIN v. MARTIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Martin",
  "decision_date": "1902-03-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "27",
  "last_page": "28",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "130 N.C. 27"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "128 N. C., 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658739
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/128/0108-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N. C., 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658556
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/127/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N. C., 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274426
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/125/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652397
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N. C., 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683235
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/82/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693409
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0340-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 N. C., 433",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652933
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/105/0433-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649585
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0139-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2812,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.190251792908135e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9401523023156948
    },
    "sha256": "ab8e324eb1599bf84ffecdbb1c2ac9146a1489f382d69af847690dac54fc35d6",
    "simhash": "1:c991563c460fd844",
    "word_count": 484
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:43.301896+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARTIN v. MARTIN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.\nThe complaint sets out no ground for an absolute divorce, and is insufficient as a complaint for divorce from bed and board in that it does not specifically state the circumstances of the alleged acts of cruelty, give time and place, and state what was plaintiff\u2019s own conduct, and that such acts were without provocation on her part. O'Connor v. O\u2019Connor, 109 N. C., 139; Jackson v. Jackson, 105 N. C., 433; White v. White, 84 N. C., 340; McQueen v. McQueen, 82 N. C., 471. And such defective complaint can not be cured by verdict. Ladd v. Ladd, 121 N. C., 118; White v. White, supra. The allegation of drunkenness was withdrawn on the trial.\nThe amendment was a nullity, because the only verification is \u201csworn and subscribed to.\u201d This would be defective as a verification, under The Code, Sec. 258, to a pleading in an ordinary action, Cole v. Boyd, 125 N. C., 496; a fortiori this is so in an action for divorce, as to which the law, which does not favor divorce, required a still more specific affidavit. The Code, Sec. 1286. The original complaint is thus verified, but is insufficient for reasons above stated. The amendment is insufficient because not thus verified, and this requirement is not a matter of form, but substance, and a defect therein is jurisdictional. This has been too recently decided to require discussion. Holloman v. Holloman, 127 N. C., 15; Nichols v. Nichols, 128 N. C., 108. The Court, however, will not dismiss, but will grant a new trial, that plaintiff may apply for leave to amend, if so advised. Ladd v. Ladd, 121 N. C., 118.\nNew Trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. B. Peebles, for the plaintiff.",
      "Winborne & Lawrence, and D. G. Barnes, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARTIN v. MARTIN.\n(Filed March 4, 1902.)\n1. DIVORCE \u2014 A Mensa el Thoro \u2014 Complaint\u2014Sufficiency.\nA complaint for divorce from bed' and board that does not specifically state the circumstances of the alleged acts of cruelty, give time and place, and state plaintiff\u2019s conduct, and that such acts were without provocation, is not sufficient.\n2. PLEADINGS \u2014 Complaint\u2022\u2014Defective\u2014Aider by Verdict.\nA defective complaint can not he cured by verdict.\n3. VERIFICATION \u2014 Pleadings\u2014Amendment\u2014The Code, Secs. 258, 1286.\nA verification of a pleading, that it was \u201csworn and subscribed to,\u201d is not sufficient.\n4. NEW TRIAL \u2014 Supreme Court \u2014 Pleadings.\nWhere an exception is made for the first time in the supreme court, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the defects can be cured by additional averments, the supreme court will not dismiss the action, hut will grant a new trial.\nActioN by Julia E. Martin against D. J. Martin, heard hy Judge Thos. A. McNeill and a jury, at April Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Northampton County. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nB. B. Peebles, for the plaintiff.\nWinborne & Lawrence, and D. G. Barnes, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0027-01",
  "first_page_order": 63,
  "last_page_order": 64
}