{
  "id": 8632538,
  "name": "SHERMAN E. LONG v. ANNA W. LONG",
  "name_abbreviation": "Long v. Long",
  "decision_date": "1934-06-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "706",
  "last_page": "708",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 N.C. 706"
    }
  ],
  "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": "141 S. E., 572",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628123
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0169-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 5767,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.193081083374124e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9129806409562874
    },
    "sha256": "8c46303c5715f0d5ae1ccf1586bde6fd2b8be7edcf96517838691e014bc62003",
    "simhash": "1:1e28ba333c0d0bd2",
    "word_count": 974
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:02.537957+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "ScheNCK, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SHERMAN E. LONG v. ANNA W. LONG."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BbogdeN, J\\\nIn order to secure an absolute divorce upon the ground of two years separation as provided in C. S. (Michie\u2019s Code, 1931), 1659(a), and chapter 163, Public Laws of 1933, must the applicant for such divorce be \u201cthe injured party?\u201d\nThe Constitution of North Carolina in Article II, section 10, provides: \u201cThe General Assembly shall have power to pass general laws regulating divorce and alimony, but shall not have power to grant a divorce or secure alimony in any individual case.\u201d This clause is the only limitation imposed upon the power of the General Assembly with reference to divorce. Consequently, it is obvious that the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in regard to granting divorces is exclusively statutory. See Saunderson v. Saunderson, 195 N. C., 169, 141 S. E., 572; Smithdeal v. Smithdeal, ante, 397; 9 N. C. Law Review, page 368. Chapter 163, Public Laws of 1933, is an independent act of the General Assembly providing in substance that \u201cmarriage may be dissolved ... on application of either party,\u201d etc. The statute gives and the statute takes away.\nHence upon the verdict of the jury the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of absolute divorce.\nReversed.\nScheNCK, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BbogdeN, J\\"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. I. Satterfield for plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SHERMAN E. LONG v. ANNA W. LONG.\n(Filed 20 June, 1934.)\nDivorce Ad: Da: Constitutional Law B a \u2014 Divorce is entirely statutory, and either party may bring action for divorce for separation.\nIn a husband\u2019s suit for divorce on the ground of two years separation it appeared that he had married defendant under threat of prosecution for seduction, and that several months thereafter plaintiff and defendant entered a separation agreement, the agreement reciting the payment of $325.00' by plaintiff to defendant. The jury found the jurisdictional facts and that plaintiff and defendant had lived separate and apart from each other for more than two years, but that plaintiff was not the injured party. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict that plaintiff was not entitled to divorce, the court being of the opinion that the statute allowing either party to sue for divorce upon two years separation was unconstitutional in so far as it allowed plaintiff to take advantage of his own wrong and defeat the property rights defendant might have in his estate. Held, plaintiff was entitled to a decree of divorce upon the verdict, N. C. Code, 1659(a), divorce being exclusively statutory, and the General Assembly having the power to enact the statute, Const., Art. II, sec. 10.\nSohenok, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nCivil actioN, before Barnhill, J., at December Term, 1933, of WlLSON.\nOn 26 October, 1933, the plaintiff instituted an action for the purpose of securing an absolute divorce from the defendant, bis wife. It was alleged that the parties were married on 14 March, 1929, \u201cand lived separate and apart since said marriage.\u201d That all property rights existing because of said marriage have been settled and said agreement recorded in the register of deeds office in Orange County, North Carolina, in Booh 93, pages 89 and 90.\u201d It was further alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant had lived separate and apart for more than two years. The summons was personally served but no answer was filed by the defendant.\nThe trial judge submitted the following issues:\n1. Were the plaintiff and the defendant duly married as alleged?\n2. Have the plaintiff and the defendant lived separate and apart for two years next preceding the filing of the complaint?\n3. Has the plaintiff been a resident of. the State of North Carolina for one year next preceding the filing of complaint ?\n4. Is the plaintiff the party injured?\nThe jury answered the first three issues \u201cYes,\u201d and the fourth issue \u201cNo-.\u201d\nThereupon the following judgment was entered:\n\u201cThis is an action for divorce instituted by the plaintiff, a resident of Person County, against the defendant, a resident of Durham County, in the Wilson County Superior Court. The cause comes on to be heard before the undersigned judge and a jury, and being heard, the jury answered the issues as will appear of record. The plaintiff having testified that he married the defendant under threat of prosecution for seduction, he at the time being the father of the defendant\u2019s unborn child, and that after the marriage he refused to live with the defendant and did not provide her with any home or otherwise make provision for her to live with him, the jury answered the fourth issue, No, the court being of the opinion that the statute which gives either party the right to sue for a divorce upon two years separation is invalid and unconstitutional insofar as it gives the person who commits the wrong the right to take advantage of his own wrong and thereby sever the marital contract and defeat the defendant of any property right she may have in the plaintiff\u2019s estate, orders and adjudges that the relief prayed for by the plaintiff be and the same is hereby denied.\n\u201cIt is further ordered and adjudged that the marriage contract between the plaintiff and defendant is still a valid, subsisting contract.\n\u201cIt is further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff pay the costs of this action.\u201d\nIt appears that on 4 June, 1929, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a separation agreement. The agreement declares that the parties were married on 14 March, 1929, but have not lived together as man and wife, and that \u201cit is mutually agreeable that they shall live separate and apart from the other,\u201d etc. The agreement further recites the payment of the sum of $325.00 to the defendant by the plaintiff.\nFrom the foregoing judgment the plaintiff appealed.\nB. I. Satterfield for plaintiff.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0706-01",
  "first_page_order": 768,
  "last_page_order": 770
}