Court Opinion

ID: 9813035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:54:06.482094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:41.470159
License: Public Domain

Seawell, J.,
dissenting: Plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s cross action cannot be taken by demurrer ore tenus when the cause comes on for trial, since the objection does not go to the statement of a cause of action or the jurisdiction of the court. C. S., 518; Baker v. Garris, 108 N. C., 219, 225, 13 S. E., 2; Poovey v. Hickory, 210 N. C., 630, 631, 188 S. E., 78; Gurganus v. McLawhorn, 212 N. C., 397, 183 S. E., 844. That question is therefore not properly before us, but under our liberal practice, and quite within the limits of our statute on procedure, the cross action should be entertained. C. S., 519, 521.
*806I am unable to find room for the Skittletbarpian philosophy in tbe modern laws relating to tbe marital relations and their consequences, which in my judgment make a better “approach to reality.”. In fact, separation under a deed in which the wife releases her marital rights has always been considered a good defense against an action for support. C. S., 1659 (a), makes such a separation, continuing for two years, a ground for absolute divorce. I can see no reason why a state of facts which would be a sufficient answer to the suit of the wife may not be pleaded as a cross action, nor where the law itself erects them into a ground for divorce. Nor do I see why the rights of the wife or any security which the statute ought to afford are invaded.
Of. the cases cited in the main opinion only the recently decided case of Silver v.. Silver, ante, 191, supports the main opinion, and the decision in that case is frankly based on Adams v. Adams, 212 N. C., 373, 193 S. E., 274, and Dawson v. Dawson, 211 N. C., 453, 190 S. E., 749, in neither of which was the question raised.
The defendant, however, was certainly not entitled to recover in this action upon the issues decided, nor was the plaintiff. The answers to two issues respecting the conduct of the husband in separating himself from his wife are repugnant and show a confused state of mind on the part of the jury on that subject, and should not be determinative of the controversy. I think judgment should rest upon a clear and understanding deliverance by the jury on the questions at issue, and not upon what might be termed the mechanics of the trial.
The cause should be heard de novo.