Dawson v. . Dawson

Stacy, C. J. The defendant’s motion for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees is not supported under C. S., 1666, either by sufficient allegations or adequate factual findings. Vaughan v. Vaughan, ante, 354; Horton v. Horton, 186 N. C., 332, 119 S. E., 490; White v. White, 179 N. C., 592, 103 S. E., 216; Webber v. Webber, 79 N. C., 572; Miller v. Miller, 75 N. C., 70. It was said in Moore v. Moore, 130 N. C., 333, 41 S. E., 943, that upon application for alimony pendente lite under C. S., 1666, “whether the wife is entitled to alimony is a question of law upon the facts found,” reviewable on appeal by either party, and “the court below must find the facts.” Caudle v. Caudle, 206 N. C., 484, 174 S. E., 304. Not until the facts are found can we determine the correctness of the ruling as a matter of law. McManus v. McManus, 191 N. C., 740, 133 S. E., 9. Nor can the. order be upheld as upon an application for alimony without divorce under C. S., 1667. This section “only applies to independent suits for alimony.” Skittletharpe v. Skittletharpe, 130 N. C., 72, 40 S. E., 851; Reeves v. Reeves, 82 N. C., 348. Error.