{
  "id": 8627849,
  "name": "HAZEL WOOD CROUSE v. FLOYD M. CROUSE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crouse v. Crouse",
  "decision_date": "1953-01-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "763",
  "last_page": "763",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "236 N.C. 763"
    }
  ],
  "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": "72 S.E. 2d 759",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2217,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "sha256": "3f8067a90d72a7aaf965e4dbb042992d9dc385096dfa87efe0e49d4818791aa1",
    "simhash": "1:8bb32fac512e8581",
    "word_count": 361
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:03:47.341722+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HAZEL WOOD CROUSE v. FLOYD M. CROUSE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s counsel propounded this question to her on her re-direct examination: \u201cWill you tell the jury about that ?\u201d The court sustained the defendant\u2019s objection to the question, and the plaintiff noted an exception to this ruling. This exception presents nothing for review because the case on appeal does not show what testimony the plaintiff would have given had she been permitted to answer the question. Lipe v. Bank, ante, 328, 72 S.E. 2d 759. The remaining exceptions are addressed to the entry of the compulsory nonsuit, and are untenable because the evidence adduced by the plaintiff at the trial was insufficient to prove the allegations of her complaint.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "II. Clay Ilemric for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "J. Elmer Long and Clarence Ross for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HAZEL WOOD CROUSE v. FLOYD M. CROUSE.\n(Filed 6 January, 1953.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 39e\u2014\nWhere the record fails to show what testimony the witness would have given had she been permitted to answer the question, the exclusion of the testimony cannot be held prejudicial.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 14\u2014\nNonsuit held, proper in this action for alimony without divorce because of failure of evidence to support the allegations of the complaint setting forth the cause of action.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Crisp, Special Judge, at May Term, 1952, of ALAMANCE.\nAction by wife against busband for alimony without divorce under G.S. 50-16.\nThe complaint alleges as grounds for the plaintiff\u2019s right to maintain her suit that her husband, the defendant, separated himself from her and failed to provide her with the necessary subsistence according to his means and condition in life; that the defendant maliciously turned her out of doors; and that the defendant offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome. The action was tried before Judge Crisp and a jury at the May Term, 1952, of the Superior Court of Alamance County. When the plaintiff had introduced her evidence and rested her ease, the defendant moved to dismiss the action upon a compulsory nonsuit, and the court allowed the motion and entered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nII. Clay Ilemric for plaintiff, appellant.\nJ. Elmer Long and Clarence Ross for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0763-01",
  "first_page_order": 815,
  "last_page_order": 815
}