{
  "id": 8625373,
  "name": "THEOPHILUS BARROW v. ETHEL BOAZ BARROW",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barrow v. Barrow",
  "decision_date": "1941-05-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "544",
  "last_page": "545",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "219 N.C. 544"
    }
  ],
  "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": "200 S. E., 436",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N. C., 662",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632524
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0662-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 S. E., 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N. C., 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626817
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0354-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 125,
    "char_count": 1284,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20724470808915887
    },
    "sha256": "ecd0d9303591dfd2b5bce10f0c535dd4baa840070fe6e0a7d8051f79a497500c",
    "simhash": "1:66ea0b0c8a0d5e44",
    "word_count": 212
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:18.105136+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THEOPHILUS BARROW v. ETHEL BOAZ BARROW."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe court having found, upon competent evidence, that the defendant in good faith denied the allegations of the complaint, was unable to defend the action or prosecute her cross action and adequately meet other expenses, that the plaintiff is financially able to pay allowances for her support and counsel fees, and (for the purposes of defendant\u2019s motion) the facts alleged in the answer and affidavits filed in support of the motion were true, there was no error in entering the order, from which appeal is taken. Vaughan v. Vaughan, 211 N. C., 354, 190 S. E., 492; Holloway v. Holloway, 214 N. C., 662, 200 S. E., 436.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Seawell <& Seawell for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "W. A. Lucas and TJ. L. Spence for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THEOPHILUS BARROW v. ETHEL BOAZ BARROW.\n(Filed 7 May, 1941.)\nDivorce \u00a7 11\u2014\nFindings of the court, upon competent evidence, held sufficient to support order granting wife alimony pendente lite.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Olive, Special Judge, at March Term, 1941, of Mooee.\nThis is an action by the plaintiff for divorce a mensa et thoro, wherein the defendant filed cross action for an absolute divorce upon the ground of adultery. From order allowing defendant\u2019s motion for alimony and counsel fees, the plaintiff appealed, assigning error.\nSeawell <& Seawell for plaintiff, appellant.\nW. A. Lucas and TJ. L. Spence for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0544-02",
  "first_page_order": 586,
  "last_page_order": 587
}