{
  "id": 8572695,
  "name": "DAVID LLOYD WICKER v. NELLIE GRACE YOW WICKER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wicker v. Wicker",
  "decision_date": "1961-11-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "723",
  "last_page": "724",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "255 N.C. 723"
    }
  ],
  "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": "117 S.E. 2d 13",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625766
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S.E. 2d 617",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219596
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0286-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2629,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.568,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.559138811768717e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48822749897773965
    },
    "sha256": "ca406675a45f548bd1c9b135493c41ca636c5284ff3d8b2a380dac757e69af1e",
    "simhash": "1:802032e9441424fc",
    "word_count": 450
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:58.690444+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID LLOYD WICKER v. NELLIE GRACE YOW WICKER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe previous action, a habeas corpus proceeding to determine the custody of the children of the marriage involved in the instant case, was heard by the trial judge who, sitting without a jury, found as a fact, among other things, that Nellie Grace Yow Wicker had not committed adultery with any person, and entered judgment in accordance therewith.\nG.S. 50-10 requires that, in a divorce action, the material facts as to the grounds for divorce must be- found by a jury. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 244 N.C. 286, 93 S.E. 2d 617.\nThus, it is patent that the order entered in the habeas corpus proceeding based on facts found by the trial judge is not res judicata to this action for divorce upon the ground of adultery.\nHence, the order from which appeal is taken is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hoyle & Hoyle, Pittman, Staton & Betts for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Gavin, Jackson & Williams for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID LLOYD WICKER v. NELLIE GRACE YOW WICKER.\n(Filed 22 November, 1961.)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 14; Judgments \u00a7 30\u2014\nIn a proceeding in habeas corpus to determine the right of custody of the children of the marriage as between husband and wife, a finding by ithe court that the wife had not committed adultery with any person is not res judicata on the question i-m a subsequent action by the husband for divorce on- the ground of adultery, it being required that in an action for divorce the ground for relief must be found by a jury. G.S. 50-10.\nAppeal by defendant from Carr, J., (on motion) at August 1961 Criminal Term, of Lee.\nCivil action for absolute divorce on ground of adultery.\nPlaintiff alleged, among other things, that on or about the 15th day of February, and on various other dates, the defendant committed adultery with a specified party, and that because of these adulterous acts, he is entitled to an absolute divorce.\nDefendant denied the material allegations of the complaint, and alleged, as a further answer and defense, that the issues raised in this action\u2014 specifically defendant\u2019s alleged acts of adultery\u2014 were raised, tried, and determined in defendant\u2019s favor in a previous case, which case was appealed to Supreme Court and reported in In Re Wicker, 253 N.C. 431, 117 S.E. 2d 13.\nWhereupon, the defendant moved for a hearing on the plea in bar of res judicata.\nUpon consideration of the stipulations of the parties and of the evidence offered, the court below was of the opinion that the order entered in the previous action is not res judicata to this action and therefore ordered that this action be tried upon its merits.\nDefendant objects thereto and appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.\nHoyle & Hoyle, Pittman, Staton & Betts for plaintiff appellee.\nGavin, Jackson & Williams for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0723-01",
  "first_page_order": 761,
  "last_page_order": 762
}