Caudle v. . Caudle

May 2, 1934
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Stacy
Stacy, C. J.

It was said in Moore v. Moore, 130 N. C., 333, 41 S. E., 943, ‍‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‍that upon application for alimony pendente lite under C. S., 1666, “whether the wife is entitled to alimony is a question of law upon the facts found,” reviewable on appeal ‍‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‍by either party, and the “court below must find the facts” upon request. ■

The court erred, therefore, in declining to find the facts. Not until the facts are ‍‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‍found can we determine the correctness of the ruling as a matter of law. McManus v. McManus, 191 N. C., 740, 133 S. E., 9.

It should be observed, perhaps, that ‍‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‍plaintiff makes her application under C. S., 1666, and not under O. S., 1667. The dissimilarity of the two statutes has been pointed out in a number of ‍‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‍cases, notably Price v. Price, 188 N. C., 640, 125 S. E., 264, and McManus v. McManus, supra.

Error.