Byrum v. . Byrum

Connor, J. The judgment in this action is reversed on the authority of Carnes v. Carnes, 204 N. C., 636, 169 S. E., 222. In that case it is said that “as long as the fifth issue stands undisturbed, it would seem that the defendant (his wife) is not entitled to the relief demanded by her, certainly not to allowance for alimony and counsel fees.” In the instant case, in view of the allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff left the home of the defendant, taken in connection with the answer to the second issue, establishing the contention of the defendant that plain *657 tiff left bis borne without excuse or justification, tbe plaintiff is not entitled to alimony. See McManus v. McManus, 191 N. C., 740, 133 S. E., 9. On tbe verdict, tbe defendant is entitled to judgment tbat plaintiff take nothing by her action. Tbe judgment is reversed and tbe action remanded to tbe Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, with direction tbat judgment be entered in accordance with this opinion. Beversed.