Page 402 |
Previous | 402 of 843 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
374 COURT OF APPEALS [20
Robuck v. Robuck
there was no evidence that deceased was killed in the heat of
passion. It is true that an instruction on "heat of passion" is
inappropriate when not supported by the evidence. State v. Rum-mage,
supra. In the case sub judice there is ample evidence from
which the jury could infer that deceased was killed in the heat
of passion.
No error.
Chief Judge BROCKa nd Judge CARSONc oncur.
FRANKLIN LEWIS ROBUCK v. JENNIE G. ROBUCK
No. 7328DC780
(Filed 9 January 1974)
Divorce and Alimony 58 14, 16- property settlement - effect on defense
of adultery and claim for alimony
A property settlement agreement signed by the parties did not
bar the wife from asserting the defense of adultery to the husband's
action for divorce and did not by virtue of G.S. 50-16.6(b) bar the
wife's cross-action for alimony.
APPEAL by defendant from Allen, Judge, 8 March 1973 Ses-sion
of District Court held in BUNCOMBCEo unty.
On 11 September 1972, plaintiff brought an action against
defendant for absolute divorce on the grounds they had lived
separate and apart since 1 August 1970.
On 11 November 1972, defendant filed her responsive plead-ings.
By way of defense to the action for divorce, defendant
answered and alleged that plaintiff and defendant had lived to-gether
until 11 January 1971, when plaintiff maliciously turned
her out of their home; that plaintiff had offered such indignities
to her person as to render her condition intolerable and life
burdensome; that plaintiff before and after turning defendant
out of the home had committed adultery and that he was the
father of an illegitimate child born to his alleged companion in
adultery. As a cross action against plaintiff, defendant sought
an award for support and maintenance and counsel fees and
pleaded the above in support of her claim.
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.020, November 28, 1973 - February 20, 1974] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 20, November 28, 1973 - February 20, 1974. Cited as 20 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 34.5 MB; 842 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_020.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 402 |
| Full Text | 374 COURT OF APPEALS [20 Robuck v. Robuck there was no evidence that deceased was killed in the heat of passion. It is true that an instruction on "heat of passion" is inappropriate when not supported by the evidence. State v. Rum-mage, supra. In the case sub judice there is ample evidence from which the jury could infer that deceased was killed in the heat of passion. No error. Chief Judge BROCKa nd Judge CARSONc oncur. FRANKLIN LEWIS ROBUCK v. JENNIE G. ROBUCK No. 7328DC780 (Filed 9 January 1974) Divorce and Alimony 58 14, 16- property settlement - effect on defense of adultery and claim for alimony A property settlement agreement signed by the parties did not bar the wife from asserting the defense of adultery to the husband's action for divorce and did not by virtue of G.S. 50-16.6(b) bar the wife's cross-action for alimony. APPEAL by defendant from Allen, Judge, 8 March 1973 Ses-sion of District Court held in BUNCOMBCEo unty. On 11 September 1972, plaintiff brought an action against defendant for absolute divorce on the grounds they had lived separate and apart since 1 August 1970. On 11 November 1972, defendant filed her responsive plead-ings. By way of defense to the action for divorce, defendant answered and alleged that plaintiff and defendant had lived to-gether until 11 January 1971, when plaintiff maliciously turned her out of their home; that plaintiff had offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome; that plaintiff before and after turning defendant out of the home had committed adultery and that he was the father of an illegitimate child born to his alleged companion in adultery. As a cross action against plaintiff, defendant sought an award for support and maintenance and counsel fees and pleaded the above in support of her claim. |
