{
  "id": 8608691,
  "name": "BEULAH B. GOODMAN v. L. VICTOR GOODMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goodman v. Goodman",
  "decision_date": "1935-09-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "416",
  "last_page": "418",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 416"
    }
  ],
  "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": "174 S. E., 921",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 672",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632334
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0672-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S. E., 688",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 794",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628195
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0794-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 S. E., 358",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604176
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 S. E., 348",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 N. C., 785",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631487
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/205/0785-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 S. E., 566",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N. C., 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650850
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/101/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 S. E., 564",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 667",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612356
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0667-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S. E., 713",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622362
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S. E., 113",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 652",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627920
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0652-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 3453,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.664261727807645e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6949233333680844
    },
    "sha256": "7eea4ca8da5c65de5b4864ffda4470192b6f6b593a7607619b790aeacfc5eb71",
    "simhash": "1:a45b8013586d10d4",
    "word_count": 614
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BEULAH B. GOODMAN v. L. VICTOR GOODMAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\n\u00a5e are precluded from considering or determining tbe question sought to be presented by defendant\u2019s appeal for tbe reason that tbe case, as sent up, consists entirely of tbe judgment, and no other part of tbe record proper appears in tbe transcript. Ins. Co. v. Bullard, 207 N. C., 652, 178 S. E., 113; S. v. Lbr. Co., 207 N. C., 47, 175 S. E., 713.\nIt is provided by Rule 19, section 1, of tbe Rules of Practice tbat \u201ctbe pleadings on wbicb tbe case is tried, tbe issues, and tbe judgment appealed from shall be a part of tbe transcript in all cases.\u201d Tbe pleadings are essential in order tbat we may be advised as to tbe nature of tbe action or proceeding. Waters v. Waters, 199 N. C., 667, 155 S. E., 564. Judicial knowledge arises only from wbat properly appears on tbe record. Walton v. McKesson, 101 N. C., 428, 7 S. E., 566.\nFailure to send up necessary parts of tbe record proper has uniformly resulted in dismissal of tbe appeal. Payne v. Brown, 205 N. C., 785, 172 S. E., 348; Riggan v. Harrison, 203 N. C., 191, 165 S. E., 358; Ins. Co. v. Bullard, supra; S. v. Lumber Co., supra.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Zeb F. Curtis and Ellis C. Jones for plaintiff.",
      "W. A. Sullivan for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BEULAH B. GOODMAN v. L. VICTOR GOODMAN.\n(Filed 18 September, 1935.)\nAppeal and Error E a \u2014 Appeal will be dismissed when the record does not contain necessary parts.\nThe pleadings, issues, and judgment appealed from are necessary parts of the record proper, Rule 19 (1), and where the judgment alone appears of record, the appeal will be dismissed, since the pleadings are essential to advise the Court as to the nature of the action or proceedings, the judicial knowledge of the Court being limited to matters properly appearing of record.\nAppeal by defendant from Warlich, J., at June Term, 1935, of BUNCOMBE.\nMotion in tbe cause to require defendant to pay alimony according to terms of decree entered at July Term, 1931, Buncombe Superior Court, affirmed on appeal, Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C., 794, 161 S. E., 688.\nTbe motion was beard upon affidavits, none of wbicb appears in tbe record. Compliance is resisted presumably upon tbe grounds that in a subsequent action brought by tbe defendant against tbe plaintiff, it is alleged a decree of absolute divorce was entered under tbe two-years separation statute, C. S., 1659 (a), at tbe December Term, 1933, Buncombe Superior Court.\nIt was apparently tbe contention of movant that this subsequent divorce, even if properly granted, was no defense to plaintiff\u2019s motion under tbe decision in Howell v. Howell, 206 N. C., 672, 174 S. E., 921.\nIt further appears that at tbe February Term, 1934, tbe alimony decree was by consent modified and reduced in amount, payable in installments of $20.00 each, with tbe understanding: \u201cIn tbe event of tbe failure of tbe said L. Y. Goodman to make any of tbe foregoing payments at tbe time and place provided, tbe said plaintiff, Beulah Goodman, shall by such failure be restored to all tbe rights for tbe payment of any moneys due her by tbe said L. Y. Goodman that she bad prior to tbe entering of this consent judgment, it being tbe intent and purpose of this judgment to secure tbe payment of tbe $350.00 and to provide against tbe waiver of nothing by tbe said Beulah Goodman in event that tbe said L. Y. Goodman does not live up to tbe letter and spirit thereof.\u201d\nFrom an order allowing tbe plaintiff\u2019s motion, tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nZeb F. Curtis and Ellis C. Jones for plaintiff.\nW. A. Sullivan for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0416-01",
  "first_page_order": 482,
  "last_page_order": 484
}