{
  "id": 8572832,
  "name": "F. G. WHITENER v. NAN G. WHITENER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitener v. Whitener",
  "decision_date": "1961-11-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "731",
  "last_page": "732",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "255 N.C. 731"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 115,
    "char_count": 1258,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "sha256": "e584e57e88a7494f20935ff2baffbfe30926d382d27b754121fcc707fc995484",
    "simhash": "1:78084d6fd0ec457e",
    "word_count": 192
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:58.690444+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. G. WHITENER v. NAN G. WHITENER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cuexam.\nThere are nine assignments of error. We have carefully examined and considered each of them. We find no error sufficiently prejudicial to justify this Court in disturbing the judgment entered. The questions raised on appeal involve no novel or unusual legal matters.\nIn the trial of the cause we perceive\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cuexam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williams, Willeford & Boger for plaintiff.",
      "Robert C. Llewellyn for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. G. WHITENER v. NAN G. WHITENER.\n(Filed 22 November, 1961.)\nAppeal by defendant from Fountain, S.J., February 1961 Term of CabaRRus.\nPlaintiff instituted this action for an absolute divorce on the ground of two years separation. G.S. 50-6. Defendant answered and counterclaimed for alimony without divorce (G.S. 50-16), alleging that plaintiff wrongfully and wilfully abandoned her.\nAt the trial the evidence was conflicting as to whether or not plaintiff had wilfully abandoned defendant. Plaintiff testified that the separation was by mutual consent. There was also a conflict of evidence as to whether or not plaintiff had contributed to defendant\u2019s support after the separation.\nAppropriate issues were submitted to the jury and were answered in favor of plaintiff. Judgment was entered granting plaintiff an absolute divorce.\nDefendant appealed.\nWilliams, Willeford & Boger for plaintiff.\nRobert C. Llewellyn for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0731-01",
  "first_page_order": 769,
  "last_page_order": 770
}