{
  "id": 8622441,
  "name": "LILLIE CASH HALL v. HARVEY A. HALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hall v. Hall",
  "decision_date": "1959-05-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "275",
  "last_page": "277",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "250 N.C. 275"
    }
  ],
  "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 226",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 188",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623695
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0188-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 S.E. 2d 375",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616553
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 597",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624004
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 S.E. 2d 360",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 600",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631316
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0600-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 5429,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.428,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.586676461891402e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6813476384144403
    },
    "sha256": "f9733c90df52268202f494db36a99757d53e41249b26126e3edaa19176d70c5a",
    "simhash": "1:a3e196232e6a25da",
    "word_count": 912
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:40.326881+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LILLIE CASH HALL v. HARVEY A. HALL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR CuRiam.\nThe findings of fact were sufficient to support the \u25a0award of alimony pendente lite and counsel fees. Furthermore, in our opinion, the facts found were supported by competent evidence.\nThe contention of the defendant that the alleged marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void because of their failure to file a health 'certificate with the Register of Deeds of Franklin County, as required by G.S. 51-14, is without merit. Failure to file a health certificate as required by law does not invalidate an otherwise legal marriage; but such failure to comply with the statute in this respect, if true, does make the plaintiff and the defendant herein subject to indictment, .and, if convicted, to the infliction of the penalty or penalties provided for the violation of G.S. 51-14.\nThe findings of the court 'below are not binding on the parties nor receivable in evidence in the trial of the case on its1 merits. Bumgarner v. Bumgarner, 231 N.C. 600, 58 S.E. 2d 360; Barwick v. Barwick, 228 N.C. 109, 44 S.E. 2d 597.\nMoreover, the amounts allowed to 4 plaintiff for subsistence pendente lite and for counsel fees are determined by the trial judge in his discretion and .are not reviewable on appeal unless there has been an abuse \u00a1of discretion. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 234 N.C. 1, 65 S.E. 2d 375; Fogartie v. Fogartie, 236 N.C. 188, 72 S.E. 2d 226. No abuse of discretion is made to 'appear.\nThe order of the court below allowing alimony pendente lite and awarding counsel fees will be upheld.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hubert H. Senter for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "John F. Matthews for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LILLIE CASH HALL v. HARVEY A. HALL.\n(Filed 6 May, 1959.)\n1. Marriage \u00a7 3\u2014\nThe failure of parties contracting a marriage to file the health certificate with the register of deeds as required by G.S. 51-14, does not invalidate the marriage, but only subjects the parties to the risk of the statutory penalty.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 18\u2014\nFindings of the count to the effect that the parties had been legally married, that defendant for the six months prior to the institution of the action had been an. habitual drunkard and had wilfully failed to .provide adequate support and maintenance for the plaintiff, and that defendant had wilfully abandoned plaintiff, held supported by competent evidence and sufficient predicate for the award of alimony pendente lite.\n3. Same\u2014\nThe findings of the court, upon the hearing of a m.otion for alimony pendente Ute, are not binding upon the trial of the cause .upon the merits and are not competent in evidence thereat.\n4. Same\u2014\nThe amounts allowed for subsistence pendente lite and counsel fees are determinable by the trial court in its discretion and are not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.\nAppeal by defendant from Hobgood, J., in Chambers at the Courthouse in Louisiburg, North Carolina, 27 September 1958. From FbaNK-lin.\nThis is .an action instituted on 22 August 1958 in the Superior Court of Franklin County, North Carolina, for divorce a mensa et thoro.\nThis cause came on for hearing on 30 August 1958 upon a motion for alimony and counsel fees pendente lite, after the defendant had been given due notice thereof as provided by law. Upon the call of the case it was continued to 13 September 1958 on motion of plaintiff \u25a0to allow time -in which to reply to the defendant\u2019s answer filed on said date. Upon the call of the case on 13 September 1958, the matter wa,s continued to 20 September 1958 on motion of the defendant to allow him time itio file 'affidavits or further pleadings. On 20 September 1958, \u2022the plaintiff\u2019s attorney being present and the defendant and his attorney being present, the plaintiff, having offered the complaint as an affidavit, reply to the defendant\u2019s answer, and additional affidavits; and the defendant having offered his answer and affidavits, as they appear in the record, and the court having considered the pleadings and affidavits filed in the matter andi having heard the arguments of counsel, took the case under advisement and found the following facts:\n\u201cThat the plaintiff Lillie Cash Hall and the defendant Haryey A. Hall were lawfully married on the 7th day of July, 1957; that no children have been bom of said marriage, but plaintiff became pregnant by defendant during the time she was living with him as husband and wife.\n\"2. That \u00a1the plaintiff has insufficient funds or estate on which to subsist pending the trial of \u2018this action, or to pay counsel.\n\u201c3. That the plaintiff has (been a resident of Franklin County, North Carolina,'for more than six months next preceding the institution of this action.\u201d\nThe court further found as >a fact \u201cthat the defendant for more than six months prior to the institution of this action ha-s been 'an habitual drunkard, that the defendant has wilfully failed to provide adequate support and maintenance for the plaintiff, and that the defendant, without adequate cause or provocation on \u00a1the part of the plaintiff, wilfully .abandoned the plaintiff .and left the residence occupied by himself and his family; and that the defendant is able-bodied, and presently employed as a weaver at the Burlington Mills Corporation at FrankMnton, North Carolina, .and is earning at least $51.02 per week.\u201d\nThe court allowed alimony pendente lite and counsel fees. Judgment was entered accordingly on 27 September 1958, and the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nHubert H. Senter for plaintiff, appellee.\nJohn F. Matthews for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0275-01",
  "first_page_order": 315,
  "last_page_order": 317
}
