Tbe defendant assails tbe order entered by Thompson,. J., for tbat it reopens, reviews and overrules tbe prior orders entered therein. This position cannot be sustained. In each of tbe former orders it is expressly stipulated tbat it is entered without prejudice.. Furthermore, tbe former orders were interlocutory and pendente lite and tbe statute, C. S., 1667, under which tbe action was instituted, expressly provides: “Tbe order of alimony herein provided for may be modified or vacated at any time on tbe application of either party or of anyone' interested.”
Tbe defendant further contends tbat tbe allowance made is not a “reasonable subsistence” but is altogether disappropriate to tbe husband’s, earnings or income and is unreasonable. In proceedings of this nature tbe amount to be allowed tbe plaintiff as alimony and for tbe support of tbe children of tbe marriage is within tbe sound discretion of tbe trial judge and will not be disturbed except where such discretion has been grossly abused. Davidson v. Davidson, 189 N. C., 625, 127 S. E., 682; Schonwald v. Schonwald, 62 N. C., 215; Barker v. Barker, 136 N. C., 316, 48 S. E., 733; Anderson v. Anderson, 183 N. C., 139, 110 S. E., 863.
Tbe children of tbe marriage are 12 years of age and 9 years of age,, respectively. They must be clothed, fed and provided with tbe necessary boobs and supplies incident to attending school. After tbe plaintiff has made tbe installment payments on tbe mortgage on tbe home place she has remaining out of tbe allotment in cash made to her only $22.50 per month with which to provide these essentials. In addition, she is, under tbe order, furnished a home in which to live. It has been found by tbe court, upon sufficient evidence, tbat this allowance is reasonably required and is necessary to provide tbe children with tbe ordinary comforts to-which their station in life entitles them. Nothing appears upon tbe record which would justify tbe conclusion tbat in fixing the amount to be paid there was any abuse of discretion by tbe court below.
But tbe exception tbe defendant most earnestly stresses in bis brief and on argument here is based on tbe contention tbat tbe court below was without power to award to tbe plaintiff any part of tbe corpus of tbe defendant’s estate. He contends tbat alimony and subsistence can be awarded only out of income and tbat there is no authority under our statute for tbe allotment of any part of tbe corpus of tbe estate to the-plaintiff. In respect to this exception tbe defendant correctly asserts tbat tbe possession of tbe estate by entirety vests in tbe husband during bis lifetime and tbat tbe home place constitutes a part of tbe corpus of bis estate. Holton v. Holton, 186 N. C., 355, 119 S. E., 751; Dorsey v. Kirkland, 177 N. C., 520, 99 S. E., 407.
C. S., 1.665, provides for tbe allowance of alimony following a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro, which allowance “shall not in any case *697exceed tbe one-tbird part of tbe net annual income from tbe estate, occupation or labor of tbe party against wbom tbe judgment shall be rendered.” C. S., 1666, provides for tbe allowance of alimony pendente lite in actions for divorce either a mensa et thoro or a vinculo. Under this section “tbe judge may order tbe husband to pay her (wife) such .alimony' during tbe pendency of tbe suit as appears to him just and proper, having regard to tbe circumstances of tbe parties.”
Tbe limitation of tbe allowance .to one-tbird of tbe net annual income from tbe estate as contained in C. S., 1665, is omitted from C. S., 1666, and C. S., 1667. Except when tbe allowance is made following a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro tbe court, in making tbe allowance, is not confined to a one-third part of tbe defendant’s net annual income. Anderson v. Anderson, 183 N. C., 139, 110 S. E., 863. It has been held that tbe payments required for tbe support of tbe wife may be made a charge upon tbe land of tbe husband. Bailey v. Bailey, 127 N. C., 474; Sanders v. Sanders, 167 N. C., 317, 83 S. E., 489; Green v. Green, 143 N. C., 506; Anderson v. Anderson, supra; White v. White, 179 N. C., 592, 103 S. E., 216; or a specific charge upon bis homestead and personal property exemptions; Walker v. Walker, 204 N. C., 210, 167 S. E., 818; or be may be required to execute a deed of trust conveying real property to a trustee to secure tbe performance of tbe decree; Anderson v. Anderson, supra; Green v. Green, supra.
Tbe provisions as to the allowance of subsistence contained in C. S., 1667, are more liberal even than the provisions of 1666 and the trial judge is vested with -broader powers in decreeing the subsistence to be awarded. It is expressly provided in this statute that it shall be lawful for such judge “to cause a husband to secure so much of bis estate or to pay so much of bis earnings, or both, as may be proper according to bis condition and circumstances for the benefit of bis said wife and the children of the marriage.” “Estate,” as used in this section, means the aggregate of property of all kinds which a person possesses. Webster’s New International Dict.; Anderson v. Anderson, supra. Tbe allowance may be a proportion of the husband’s estate which is judicially allowed and allotted to the wife. Anderson v. Anderson, supra. When the decree requires the assignment of real estate as a part of the subsistence award “the court has power to issue a writ of possession when necessary in the judgment of the court to do so.” C. S., 1668.
Tbe court was authorized to sequester tbe home place and to require tbe application of the. rents and profits therefrom to tbe procurement •of a residence for tbe children as a necessary part of tbe subsistence allowed. Tbe defendant is not prejudiced by tbe order granting tbe right of occupancy of tbe home place in lieu thereof. As to him, in *698either event, the result would be the same. As to the wife and children, the arrangement is much more feasible and appropriate.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.