the husband and wife are living apart, there is no presumption . . . that she has any authority to pledge his credit even for necessaries. The presumption is that she has in fact no authority.”); see also Pool v. Everton, 50 N.C. 241, 242 (1858) (explaining that a husband is not responsible for his wife’s necessaries where “a wife leaves the ‘bed and board’ of the husband without good cause”). In Forsyth Memorial, our Supreme Court revised the exception in light of the modem view of marriage as a “partnership of equality,” and concluded that “[t]he spouse seeking to benefit from the separation exception... must show that the provider of necessary services had actual notice of the separation at the time the services were rendered.” Forsyth Memorial, 342 N.C. at 622, 467 S.E.2d at 91
holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001 holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians holding in a similar factual situation that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction because it had no actual or constructive possession of the letters of credit involved holding that defendant must prove when the services were rendered to establish that the new value exception applies holding that because the hospital had no actual or constructive notice that the parties were separated at the time services were rendered the separation exception did not apply