Newell v. Newell ( 1932 )

Stacy, C. J.

Conceding, without deciding, that it was error to continue to the hearing plaintiff’s motion for alimony pendente lile, nevertheless, in the absence of a sufficient showing, which perhaps may yet be made, the refusal to allow the motion is not cause for appellate interference. Hennis v. Hennis, 180 N. C., 606, 105 S. E., 274; Easely v. Easely, 173 N. C., 530, 92 S. E., 353.

Affirmed.