{
  "id": 8607033,
  "name": "EDNA MAE BARKER v. JAMES G. BARKER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barker v. Barker",
  "decision_date": "1950-10-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "495",
  "last_page": "496",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 N.C. 495"
    }
  ],
  "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": "31 S.E. 2d 535",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607957
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0508-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 219",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N.C. 721",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628184
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0721-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272558
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/86/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 S.E. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N.C. 672",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661619
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0672-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 222",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N.C. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622994
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0636-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 S.E. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625940
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 169",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8598577
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 S.E. 2d 636",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 S.E. 2d 807",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 624",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623447
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0624-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 214",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622422
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0009-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2548,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.27879270835649e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6169749664941856
    },
    "sha256": "226d57cade9ba86d0237472d43de1334165cee9044cff710e3239210221e1d2d",
    "simhash": "1:9b83451f42a1a60a",
    "word_count": 434
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EDNA MAE BARKER v. JAMES G. BARKER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devest, J.\nThis was a suit for alimony without divorce under G.;S; 50-16. The plaintiff alleged as the basis of ber suit that the defendant had neglected and mistreated her, and. had abused and assaulted her, had threatened her life and driven her from home, and \u201cby his conduct ha.s made her burdens unbearable and life intolerable.\u201d In this Court the defendant demurred ore tenus on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for that nowhere in the complaint did the plaintiff allege that the indignities offered to Iyer person or his conduct in causing her to leave home were without adequate provocation on her part.\nAn examination of the complaint shows that this material averment was not incorporated in the complaint. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that this averment, in connection with allegations such as are contained in the plaintiff\u2019s complaint as ground for relief, is essential- and its omission fatal to the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action. Best v. Best, 228 N.C. 9, 44 S.E. 2d 214; Lawrence v. Lawrence, 226 N.C. 624, 39 S.E. 2d 807; Pearce v. Pearce, 225 N.C. 571, 35 S.E. 2d 636; Howell v. Howell, 223 N.C. 62, 25 S.E. 2d 169; Pollard v. Pollard, 221 N.C. 46, 19 S.E. 2d 1; Carnes v. Carnes, 204 N.C. 636, 169 S.E. 222; Garsed v. Garsed, 170 N.C. 672, 87 S.E. 45.\nIn accord with the established rule and on authority of the cases cited the demurrer to the complaint is sustained. The judgment below predicated upon the complaint must be held for error (Tucker v. Baker, 86 N.C. 1). The action is remanded to the Superior Court of Wilkes' County with instruction that same be dismissed unless within apt time the plaintiff moves for leave to amend under G.S. 1-131. White v. Charlotte, 207 N.C. 721, 178 S.E. 219; Watson v. Lee County, 224 N.C. 508 (513), 31 S.E. 2d 535.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devest, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Whicker & Whicker and Trivette, Hojshouser \u25a0& Mitchell for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Boiuie & Bowie and W. H. McElwee for defendant, appellant. \u25a0 \u25a0\u25a0\u25a0"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDNA MAE BARKER v. JAMES G. BARKER.\n(Filed 11 October, 1950.)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 5d\u2014\nIn an action for alimony without divorce, G.S. 50-16, on the ground of mistreatment constituting constructive abandonment, the absence of an allegation that defendant\u2019s misconduct was without adequate provocation, is fatal, and judgment in plaintiff\u2019s favor will be set aside on appeal, and the cause remanded for dismissal unless plaintiff moves in apt time to amend. G.S. 1-131.\nAppeal by defendant from Crisp, Special Judge, June Term, 1950, of WlLKES.\nWhicker & Whicker and Trivette, Hojshouser \u25a0& Mitchell for plaintiff, appellee.\nBoiuie & Bowie and W. H. McElwee for defendant, appellant. \u25a0 \u25a0\u25a0\u25a0"
  },
  "file_name": "0495-01",
  "first_page_order": 543,
  "last_page_order": 544
}