{
  "id": 8619552,
  "name": "J. D. RAGAN v. MAGNOLIA RAGAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ragan v. Ragan",
  "decision_date": "1938-01-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "753",
  "last_page": "755",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "212 N.C. 753"
    }
  ],
  "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": "38 S. E., 296",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N. C., 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658739
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/128/0108-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 S. E., 822",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N. C., 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 S. E., 943",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N. C., 333",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273533
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/130/0333-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 S. E., 396",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614436
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0513-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S. E., 465",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N. C., 705",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661934
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0705-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 S. E., 81",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N. C., 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650620
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/100/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 S. E., 795",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N. C., 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650608
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/100/0294-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N. C., 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274529
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N. C., 144",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277221
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/83/0144-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 341,
    "char_count": 5153,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2374005662569322e-07,
      "percentile": 0.607070528050091
    },
    "sha256": "c30886389208da30a05c4b594f9a0723a16e01301032fe3410ae9938819fb462",
    "simhash": "1:c781a63e6a5f6afc",
    "word_count": 894
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:43.466662+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. D. RAGAN v. MAGNOLIA RAGAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "'WiNBORNE, J.\nThe judgment below, as certified to this Court, is wholly inconsistent with the findings of fact, and is meaningless. The defendant, wbo is the moving party, is ordered to pay the allowance to herself. Patently the word \u201cdefendant\u201d as it first appears therein was inadvertently and erroneously used for the word \u201cplaintiff.\u201d However, be that as it may, it is the duty of the court below, and not ours, on application, or ex mero motu, to correct the record to speak the truth, and to make entries nunc pro tunc that were certainly intended to be made, but omitted by mistake, accident, or inadvertence of the court. Such authority is essential. Wall v. Covington, 83 N. C., 144; Strickland v. Strickland, 95 N. C., 471; Cook v. Moore, 100 N. C., 294, 6 S. E., 795; Brooks v. Stephens, 100 N. C., 297, 6 S. E., 81; Durham v. Cotton Mills, 144 N. C., 705, 57 S. E., 465; S. v. Brown, 203 N. C., 513, 166 S. E., 396.\nOn the face of the judgment, the plaintiff is not the party aggrieved\u2014 and is not, therefore, entitled to appeal. O. S., 632.\nThe defendant may find it expedient to apply to the court for permission to amend her answer and the verification thereof to meet objections made on this appeal. Moore v. Moore, 130 N. C., 333, 41 S. E., 943; Martin v. Martin, 130 N. C., 28, 40 S. E., 822; Nichols v. Nichols, 128 N. C., 108, 38 S. E., 296; C. S., 1661.\nThe appeal will be\nDismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "'WiNBORNE, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. Barbee for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Bennett -& McDonald for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. D. RAGAN v. MAGNOLIA RAGAN.\n(Filed 5 January, 1938.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 20b\u2014\nWhere it is patent that the judgment as certified used the word \u201cdefendant\u201d where the word \u201cplaintiff\u201d was intended, resulting in an inconsistent and meaningless judgment, it is the duty of the trial court to correct the record to speak the truth, either on application, or ex mero motu.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 3a\u2014\nWhere by error the judgment of the court directs \u201cdefendant\u201d to pay money into court for the benefit of defendant, plaintiff is not the injured party on the record as certified, and his appeal will be dismissed. O. S., 632.\n8. Pleadings \u00a7 23: Divorce \u00a7 5\u2014\nWhere appeal from an order granting alimony pendente lite is dismissed, defendant may thereafter apply for permission to amend her answer setting up a cross action for divorce a mensa et thoro to meet plaintiff\u2019s objection to the verification. O. S., 1661.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Williams, J., at September Term, 1937, of DURHAM.\nAction for absolute divorce, and cross action for divorce a mensa et thoro and for alimony pendente lite.\nThe complaint, duly verified, alleged that plaintiff and defendant were married in June, 1935; that a few days thereafter defendant abandoned plaintiff without just cause and \u201chas been guilty of adulterous relations with numerous persons whose names are at present unknown to plaintiff.\u201d\nDefendant filed answer in which she denied the material allegations of the complaint except the fact of her marriage to plaintiff on 24 June, 1935; and set up cross action for divorce from bed and board from the plaintiff on the ground of \u201ccruel and inhuman treatment\u201d by plaintiff, of acts and conduct of plaintiff which \u201cmade her life burdensome and unbearable\u201d and of being \u201cmaliciously turned out of her home\u201d by plaintiff. Defendant further alleged that \u201cshe has no property or income sufficient for her livelihood and to aid her in defending her action and protecting her good name\u201d; and that plaintiff has considerable property and income ample to support defendant and defray the expenses of her action. Upon these allegations she prayed that plaintiff\u2019s action be dismissed, that she be granted decree of divorce from bed and board; and that she be allowed reasonable attorney\u2019s fees and other expenses in defending her action and alimony \u2022pendente lite. The answer is verified as provided in C. S., 529, and not in conformity with C. S., 1661.\nAfter notice, the motion of defendant for alimony pendente lite was heard by the presiding judge who, upon hearing' the evidence presented by affidavits and pleadings, \u201cfinds the facts to be, for the purpose of this motion, substantially as set out in the defendant\u2019s answer and cross action, as alleged therein, as fully as if incorporated herein in detail\u201d; and that the plaintiff owns property of the assessed value of $3,000, which is its reasonable value, subject to mortgage of $125.00. Upon these findings of fact, the court rendered the following judgment: \u201cIt is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the defendant pay into the office of the clerk of the Superior Court of Durham County the sum of $75.00 on or' before 1 October, 1937, $50.00 of said amount for Messrs. McDonald and Bennett, attorneys for the defendant, and $25.00 for the use of the defendant and her benefit, and that thereafter, on the first day of each month the defendant shall pay into the office of the clerk of the Superior Court of Durham County the sum of $15.00 per month pending the final trial and determination of this action.\u201d\nFrom judgment as signed the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, and assigned error.\nJ. W. Barbee for plaintiff, appellant.\nBennett -& McDonald for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0753-01",
  "first_page_order": 823,
  "last_page_order": 825
}