TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Parker v. Parker

Larkin Fuller Parker v. Hattie Johnson Parker.

Parker v. Parker, 186 S.E. 346 (N.C. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1936
Judges
Connor
Citations
186 S.E. 346210 N.C. 2641936 N.C. LEXIS 75

Opinion of the Court — O'Connor

Connor, J.

At the trial of this action, the court instructed the jury as follows:

“The burden is on the plaintiff, gentlemen of the jury, to satisfy you by the greater weight of the evidence that he has lived separate and apart from the defendant for a period of two years or more, and if he has so satisfied you that he has lived separate and apart from her for a period of two years, or for a longer period than two years, then it will be your duty to answer the second issue ‘Yes’; otherwise, you would answer the issue ‘No.’

On her appeal to this Court, the defendant assigns this instruction as error. The assignment is sustained.

The statute applicable to this action is chapter 12, Public Laws of North Carolina, 1931, as amended by chapter 163, Public Laws of North Carolina, 1933, and reads as follows:

“Marriages may be dissolved and the parties thereto- divorced from the bonds of matrimony, on application of either party, if and when there has been a separation of husband and wife, either under a deed of separation or otherwise, and they have lived separate and apart from each other for two years, and the plaintiff in the suit for divorce has resided in this State for a period of one year.” N. C. Code of 1935, section 1659 (a).

This statute authorizes a divorce on the application of either the bus-band or the wife, without regard to whether or not the applicant is the injured party (Long v. Long, 206 N. C., 706 , 175 S. E., 85 ;

Campbell v. Campbell, 207 N. C., 859 , 176 S. E., 250 ), where there has been a voluntary separation, under a deed of separation or otherwise, of bus-band and wife, and after such separation they have lived separate and apart from each other for two years. It does not authorize a divorce where the husband has separated himself from his wife, or the wife has separated herself from her husband, without cause and without an agreement, express or implied, although after such separation, be or she has *266 lived separate and apart from the abandoned wife or husband for two years. It is manifest from the language of the statute that it was not the purpose of the General Assembly to authorize a divorce in this State where a husband has abandoned his wife, without cause, as in the instant case, and in disregard of his legal and moral duty, has absented himself from her for more than two years, although he has from time to time provided her with money for her support.

The word “separation,” as applied to the legal status of a husband and wife, means more than “abandonment”; it means “A cessation of cohabitation of husband and wife, by mutual agreement.”

Lee v. Lee, 182 N. C., 61 , 108 S. E., 352 .

Where a husband and wife have lived separate and apart from each other for two years, following a separation by mutual agreement, express or implied, their marriage may be dissolved; but where they have lived separate and apart from each other for two years, without a previous agreement between them, neither is entitled to a divorce, under the statute, O. S., 1659 (a).

The defendant is entitled to a new trial. It is so ordered.

New trial.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 11941: 11942: 11943: 11944: 11945: 21963: 119362026peak 1945 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Byers v. Byers22 S.E.2d 902 (N.C. 1942)
  2. Byers v. Byers25 S.E.2d 466 (N.C. 1943)
  3. Young v. Young34 S.E.2d 154 (N.C. 1945)
  4. Dudley v. Dudley33 S.E.2d 489 (N.C. 1945)
  5. Oliver v. Oliver13 S.E.2d 549 (N.C. 1941)
  6. Boozer v. Boozer130 S.E.2d 903 (S.C. 1963)

Most recent

  1. Boozer v. Boozer130 S.E.2d 903 (S.C. 1963)
  2. Young v. Young34 S.E.2d 154 (N.C. 1945)
  3. Dudley v. Dudley33 S.E.2d 489 (N.C. 1945)
  4. Williams v. Williams29 S.E.2d 39 (N.C. 1944)
  5. Byers v. Byers25 S.E.2d 466 (N.C. 1943)
  6. Byers v. Byers22 S.E.2d 902 (N.C. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Lee v. Lee, 108 S.E. 352 (N.C. 1921) 13
Campbell v. Campbell, 176 S.E. 250 (N.C. 1934) 6
Long v. Long, 175 S.E. 85 (N.C. 1934) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list