
    MRS. FRANCES PREVATTE v. W. D. PREVATTE.
    (Filed 16 December, 1953.)
    1. Appeal and Error § 12—
    Where the judge writes on the judgment that plaintiff be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis upon compliance with the statute, but plaintiff obtains no order allowing appeal in forma pauperis after the filing of affidavit of poverty subsequent to the term, the appeal must be dismissed for failure to comply with the mandatory provision of the statute. G.S. 1-288.
    2. Same—
    The statutory requirements of appeals in forma pauperis are mandatory, and failure to comply deprives the Supreme Court of any appellate jurisdiction.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Grady, Emergency Judge, August Term, 1953, of RobesoN.
    Appeal dismissed.
    I. Murchison Biggs for plaintiff appellant.
    
    
      Robert Weinstein and F. D. Hachett for defendant appellee'.
    
   Per Curiam.

This was a suit for divorce a mensa. From order denying motion for alimony pendente Ute the plaintiff gave notice of appeal and attempted to appeal in forma pauperis. However, it appears that there was no order allowing appeal in forma, pauperis after the filing of affidavit of poverty subsequent to the term. GLS. 1-288. True, the judge wrote in the judgment “plaintiff allowed to appeal in forma pau-peris upon compliance with the statute,” but this would not authorize disregard of the provisions of the statute. Anderson v. Worthington, 238 N.C. 577. The requirements of the statute allowing appeals in forma pauperis are mandatory and failure to comply deprives this Court of any appellate jurisdiction. Williams v. Tillman, 229 N.C. 434, 50 S.E. 2d 33; Brown v. Kress & Co., 207 N.C. 722, 178 S.E. 248.

Appeal dismissed.  