{
  "id": 8688687,
  "name": "VIRGINIA C. MORRIS v. Z. L. MORRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Morris v. Morris",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "168",
  "last_page": "170",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 168"
    }
  ],
  "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": "10 Ired, 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ired., 506",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        1972533
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/32/0506-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 3893,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4140917095938798
    },
    "sha256": "226fedb8141a5ae4da65c94d40fef5f5fab4eb06abbfbde606b594a76826f2f3",
    "simhash": "1:10c4da44b867a697",
    "word_count": 657
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:21.962704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VIRGINIA C. MORRIS v. Z. L. MORRIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bynum, J.\n\u201c Marriages may be dissolved and the parties thereto divorced from the bonds of matrimony, on application of the party injured, made as by law provided, in the\u2019 following cases : 1. If either party shall separate from the other and live in adultery. 2. If the wife commits adultery. 3. If either party at the time of the marriage was and still is naturally impotent.\u201d Bat. Rev., chap. 37, sec. 4.\nThe application here is for divorce from the bonds of matrimony. A separation is charged, but there is no allegation that the husband after separating from the wife lived in adultery, nor was any issue submitted to and found by the jury to that effect. By the plain words of the statute, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to. a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii in this action. There is no prayer for a divorce a mensa et thoro, and for that reason, if for no other, a decree for separation from bed and board cannot be allowed. Hansley v. Hansley, 10 Ired., 506. As from the facts stated in the complaint, it is more than probable that the defendant has lived in adultery since the separation, and that it could have been established had the proper allegation been made in the complaint, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.\nThere is no error.\nPer Curiam. . Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bynum, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilson & Son, for the appellant.",
      "Vance & Burwell, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VIRGINIA C. MORRIS v. Z. L. MORRIS.\nA petition by a wife for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, charging the defendant with adultery, and with separating from her, but which does not. allege that after such separation, he continued to live in, or committed adultery, is fatally defective, and- will not entitle the petitioner to a decree of divorce from the bonds of matrimony.\nAnd as there was no prayer in the plaintiff\u2019s petition for a divorce a mensa et fhoro, for that reason, if for none other, a decree for separation from bed and board cannot be allowed, and the petition will be dismissed.\n{Eamsley v. Hansleg, 10 Ired, 500, cited and approved.)\nCivil Action for Divorce, tried before Schenck, J., at August Term, 1875, of Mecklenburg Superior Court.\nThe complaint substantially alleged :\nThat the plaintiff and defendant were residents of Meck-lenburg County.\nThat they were legally married and lived together as man and wife until the 27th of July, 1873, when the- plaintiff quit ihe bed and board of the defendant.\nThat at that time, the plaintiff discovered thatthedefendant had, committed adultery with one Josephine Hunter, and that adulterous intercourse had taken place between said parties, for some years.\nThat in the absence of the plaintiff, the defendant had taken said Josephine to his home, and there had adulterous intercourse with her. That he had at other places habitually committed adultery with said Josephine.\nThat at different\u2019 times the defendant had inflicted personal violence upon the plaintiff.\nThat the plaintiff has resided in this State three years, prior to the commencement of this action.\nThe complaint prayed for a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii.\nIn response to the issues the jury found:\n1. There was a marriage solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant.\n2. The petitioner has resided in the State of North Carolina three, years next proceeding the exhibition of her petition.\n3. The defendant has been guilty of adultery with one Josephine Hunter.\n4. The facts set forth in the complaint as ground for divorce have been known to the plaintiff six months prior to the filing of her complaint.\nUpon the hearing his Honor held that upon the. facts found the plaintiff was not entitled to a divorce a vinculo matrimonii for the reason that no separation and subsequent adultery was proved against the defendant. There being no prayer for a divorce a mensa et thoro, the Court rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs. From this judgment the plaintiff appealed.\nWilson & Son, for the appellant.\nVance & Burwell, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0168-01",
  "first_page_order": 176,
  "last_page_order": 178
}