Case Name: ANNIE LEE MEEKS BROOKS v. MARSHALL LEE BROOKS; - and - MARSHALL LEE BROOKS v. ANNIE LEE MEEKS BROOKS
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1974-07-17
Citations: 22 N.C. App. 507
Docket Number: No. 7419DC274
Parties: ANNIE LEE MEEKS BROOKS v. MARSHALL LEE BROOKS — and — MARSHALL LEE BROOKS v. ANNIE LEE MEEKS BROOKS
Judges: Judges Campbell and Britt concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
ANNIE LEE MEEKS BROOKS v. MARSHALL LEE BROOKS — and — MARSHALL LEE BROOKS v. ANNIE LEE MEEKS BROOKS
No. 7419DC274
(Filed 17 July 1974)
Appeal by Marshall Lee Brooks from Walker, District Judge, 24 September 1973 Session of District Court held in Ca-barrus County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 May 1974.
On 3 July 1972, Annie Lee Meeks Brooks instituted an action for alimony without divorce, alleging as grounds for relief that her husband, Marshall Lee Brooks, wilfully abandoned her. While the action for alimony without divorce was pending, on 9 April 1973, Marshall Lee Brooks instituted an action for absolute divorce upon the grounds of one year of separation. The two actions were consolidated for trial. The jury answered issues, including an issue of abandonment, in favor of Annie Lee Meeks Brooks and against Marshall Lee Brooks. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, awarding alimony and counsel fees to Annie Lee Meeks Brooks and dismissing the action by Marshall Lee Brooks for absolute divorce.
Johnson and Jenkins, by James C. Johnson, Jr., for Annie Lee Meeks Brooks.
Carlton, Rhodes & Thurston, by Graham M. Carlton, for Marshall Lee Brooks.

Opinion:
BROCK, Chief Judge.
All of the assignments of error by Marshall Lee Brooks are to the trial judge's instructions to the jury. In our view, no useful purpose will be served by a detailed discussion of these. We have carefully examined each argument advanced by appellant and have examined the instructions to the jury. In our opinion, the instructions fairly and impartially submit the case to the jury under applicable principles of law. Reading the instructions in context and as a whole, we find no prejudicial error.
No error.
Judges Campbell and Britt concur.