COE v. COE

No. 603.

134 S.E.2d 197 (1964)

261 N.C. 174

Ruth Helen COE v. Winfred T. COE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 19, 1964.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Douglas, Ravenel, Josey & Hardy by C. Kitchin Josey and G. S. Crihfield, Greensboro, for plaintiff appellee.

Cahoon, Egerton & Alspaugh, by James B. Rivenbark, Greensboro, for defendant appellant.


PER CURIAM.

It is manifest that the court here in an action for alimony has not, on plaintiff's motion for subsistence, determined the amount reasonably necessary for that purpose. On the contrary, the court decrees specific performance of a contract which plaintiff alleges is void. The relief to which a plaintiff may be entitled is determined by the facts alleged and established. A plaintiff may not obtain a decree affording relief totally inconsistent with the facts...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases