{ "id": 8618656, "name": "ALTON K. PEARCE v. INEZ M. PEARCE", "name_abbreviation": "Pearce v. Pearce", "decision_date": "1946-05-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "307", "last_page": "310", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "226 N.C. 307" } ], "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": "225 N. C., 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613979 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0571-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 S. E., 619", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N. C., 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269906 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/161/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S. E., 333", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N. C., 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628015 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 N. C., 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599327 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 N. C., 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600211 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N. C., 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600171 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N. C., 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8693408 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/55/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 N. C., 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661807 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/131/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 N. C., 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652933 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/105/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N. C., 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607769 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 N. C., 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603482 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S. E., 807", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N. C., 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273537 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 N. C., 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630196 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 N. C., 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 N. C., 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613979 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0571-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 450, "char_count": 7818, "ocr_confidence": 0.463, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2865842512306207e-07, "percentile": 0.6188061543356389 }, "sha256": "036d996509595f05664aa9265ecf8605b4daaa0122ed3a42b61b54dee402baec", "simhash": "1:3122d34ac6bb8b72", "word_count": 1367 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:42.041183+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ALTON K. PEARCE v. INEZ M. PEARCE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BabNHill, J.\nTbe further defense and tbe cross action or actions upon wbicb defendant apparently relies are not separately stated as required by statute and by tbe Rules of Practice adopted by tbis Court. G. S., 1-138, Rule 20 (2), 221 N. C., 557. Numerous facts are alleged in a series of paragraphs without any satisfactory attempt to indicate, wbicb are relied upon in defense and wbicb as a basis for affirmative relief. Henoe it does not appear with any degree of certainty just what affirmative defense and which cause or causes for divorce she seeks to assert.\nEven so, on demurrer the defendant is entitled to have her pleadings liberally construed. Sparrow v. Morrell & Co., 215 N. C., 452, 2 S. E. (2d), 365. The demurrer will not be sustained if facts sufficient to entitle her to some relief can be gathered .therefrom. Hoke v. Glenn, 167 N. C., 594, 83 S. E., 807; Lumber Co. v. Edwards, 217 N. C., 251, 7 S. E. (2d), 497.\nThe defendant denies that there has been a voluntary separation and alleges that plaintiff, since June, 1941, has maintained an apartment in Richmond for another woman with whom he has lived in illicit relations; that he has repeatedly committed acts of adultery with this woman; that since said time he has become cold and indifferent toward defendant, has excluded her from his bedroom, and has continuously and repeatedly told her that he did not give a damn about her, did not want her, and that he never expected to live with her as husband and wife again; that he has since that time refused to live with her as husband and wife; that she has repeatedly, for the sake of her children, attempted to persuade plaintiff to cease his misconduct and live the normal, peaceful life they had lived before he began his illicit relations with the woman in Richmond; that notwithstanding such attempts on her part the plaintiff has persisted in his repeated insults and humiliation of her and, finally, shortly before 19 August, 1942,. ordered defendant to leave his home; that thereupon under his persuasion she signed a separation agreement in writing in which the plaintiff agreed to pay her $100 per month in lieu of alimony \u201cand thus the defendant wife separated herself from the plaintiff\u201d; that said agreement was void in its inception for the reason that it was not executed in the manner required by G. S., 52-12 and 52-13; that at the time she was without property or income with which to discharge her ordinary living expenses and is now unable to defray the expenses of this litigation or to pay' counsel to conduct her defense herein; that plaintiff, upon learning that said agreement was void, ceased to make the payments therein required and has not since August, 1945, made any contribution whatsoever toward her support; and that plaintiff\u2019s conduct as alleged has rendered her condition intolerable and her life burdensome. She further alleges that the misconduct of plaintiff was without any provocation on her part.\nShe prays (1) a decree of divorce a mensa et th'oro, (2) an order for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees, (3) an order for alimony, and (4) for general relief.\nIt must be noted at the threshold of this case that the asserted written agreement of separation is void ab initio. G. S., 52-12, 52-13; Daughtry v. Daughtry, 225 N. C., 358; Pearce v. Pearce, 225 N. C., 571. In law it does not exist. Hence tbe plaintiff bas no right to claim tbe benefit of any of its provisions. Tbe allegations in tbe answer must be weighed in tbe light of this fact.\nDefendant alleges that plaintiff cohabited and committed adultery with another woman and that these illicit relations continued over a period of time notwithstanding the protestations and pleas of defendant. Thus she states a cause of action for absolute divorce. G-. S., 50-5 (1).\nIt is likewise alleged that plaintiff, to the great humiliation of defendant, has been living in adultery, that he has repeatedly avowed his loss of affection and his desire -to be rid of defendant, ejected her from his bed, and finally ordered her from his home, stating that he never intended to live with her again as husband and wife.\nSuch flagrant infidelity, humiliation and insult, repeated and persisted in, might well send the broken heart of a refined and sensitive woman to the grave. Allegation thereof sufficiently states a cause of action under (G. S., 50-7 (4); Jackson v. Jackson, 105 N. C., 433; Green v. Green, 131 N. C., 533; Coble v. Coble, 55 N. C., 392. Under this section of the code allegation of actual physical violence is not required. Coble v. Coble, supra; Green v. Green, supra; 14 L. R. A., 685n; 18 L. R. A. (N. S.), 309n.\nAs the defendant has pleaded two causes of action for divorce, it follows that she has interposed a plea of recrimination in defense. Taylor v. Taylor, 225 N. C., 80; Pharr v. Pharr, 223 N. C., 115, 25 S. E. (2d), 471; Byers v. Byers, 223 N. C., 85, 25 S. E. (2d), 466; Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347, 196 S. E., 333; Page v. Page, 161 N. C., 170, 76 S. E., 619.\nThe judgment overruling the demurrer is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "BabNHill, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Douglass \u00a3 Douglass for plaintiff, appellant.", "Thos. W. Puffin for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ALTON K. PEARCE v. INEZ M. PEARCE.\n(Filed 1 May, 1946.)\n1. Pleadings \u00a7 15\u2014\nUpon demurrer tlie pleading- will tie liberally construed and tbe demurrer overruled if facts sufficient to entitle tbe pleader to some relief can be gathered from tbe pleading.\n2. Same-\u2014\nA demurrer to an answer should be overruled if sufficient facts can be gathered from tbe pleading to entitle defendant to some relief, notwithstanding that the answer fails to state separately the cause or causes relied on for affirmative relief and the matters relied on as defenses, as required by G. S., 1-138 and Rule 20 (2).\n3. Husband and Wife \u00a7 12d (1): Divorce \u00a7 5b\u2014\nA deed of separation which is not executed as required by G. S., 52-12, G. S., 52-13, is void ab initio and does not in law exist, and therefore no claim can be asserted by the husband thereunder, and where the execution of such void agreement appears from the pleadings in the husband\u2019s action for divorce on the ground of two years separation, the allegations of the wife\u2019s answer must be weighed in the light of this fact.\n4. Divorce \u00a7 51b\u2014\nAllegations that the husband cohabited and committed adultery with another woman and that these illicit relations continued over a period of time notwithstanding the protestations and pleas of the \u2022 wife, states a cause of action for absolute divorce. G. S., 50-5 (1).\n5. Same: Divorce \u00a7 1\u2014\nAllegations to the effect that the husband, to the great humiliation of the wife, had been living- in adultery, that he repeatedly avowed his loss of affection for and his desire to be rid of his wife, had ejected her from his bed, and finally ordered her from his home, saying that he never intended to live with her again as husband and wife, states a cause of action in the wife\u2019s favor for divorce from bed and board. G. S., 50-i (4).\n6. Same\u2014\nUnder G. S., 50-7 (4), allegation of actual physical violence is not required.\n7. Divorce \u00a72% \u2014\nIn a divorce action, an answer which alleges causes for divorce against plaintiff interposes a plea of recrimination in defense.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Parker, J., at December Civil.Term, 1945, of Wake. Affirmed.\nCivil action for divorce beard.on demurrer to tbe further defense and cross action pleaded in defendant\u2019s answer.\nTbis case was here on former appeal. Pearce v. Pearce, 225 N. C., 571. After the cause was remanded tbe defendant filed an amended answer in wbicb she pleads a revised further defense and cross action.\nTbe plaintiff demurred for that tbe facts alleged, in view of defendant\u2019s admissions, are not sufficient to constitute (1) a cross action or (2) a valid defense. Tbe demurrer was overruled and plaintiff appealed.\nDouglass \u00a3 Douglass for plaintiff, appellant.\nThos. W. Puffin for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0307-01", "first_page_order": 355, "last_page_order": 358 }