Phillips v. Phillips

We do not understand that it is contended that subsistence and counsel fees pendente lite may not now be allowed under C.S., 1667, authorizing an action for alimony without divorce. The original Act of 1871-72 did not so provide; but successive amendments by ch. 24, Public Laws of 1919, and ch. 123, Public Laws of 1921, permitted an allowance of subsistence and of counsel fees pending the hearing on the issues. See history of this legislation per Adams, J., in Moore v. Moore, 185 N.C. 332, 335, 117 S.E., 12; Peele v. Peele, 216 N.C. 298, 4 S.E.2d 616; Holloway v. Holloway, 214 N.C. 662, 200 S.E., 436. The defendant merely contends that, as a matter of law, such allowances should not be made upon the facts of this case and on plaintiff's own showing.