Herring, In re, 358
| Citation | 268 N.C. 434,150 S.E.2d 775 |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 358,358 |
| Parties | In re Sandra Genine HERRING, an Infant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Sasser & Duke, Goldsboro, H. E. Phillips, Kenansville, for petitioner appellant.
George R. Kornegay, Jr., Mt. Olive, for respondent appellee.
In what are, for all practical purposes, two Ex parte proceedings, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Wayne County awarded the custody of this little girl to Mrs. Ferrell who was a resident of that County, and shortly afterwards the Clerk of the Superior Court of Duplin County in a similar proceeding awarded the custody to his constituent, Mrs. Herring. The child has at all times in question been residing with Mrs. Ferrell in Wayne County and the jurisdiction of the matter is properly laid there.
G.S. § 17--39.1 provides that
Pursuant to this statute, the paternal grandmother, Mrs. Herring, obtained a writ of Habeas corpus which was made returnable before Judge Bundy. When the matter came on to be heard, the Respondent, Mrs. Ferrell, entered what she called a Special Appearance, in which she denied the jurisdiction of Judge Bundy. His Honor signed an order that 'the Court being of the opinion that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters in controversy * * * it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the same be dismissed and the petitioner taxed with the costs.'
The record does not disclose that any evidence was heard before Judge Bundy and no facts were found. The statute quoted above was enacted for the purpose of giving Judges of the Superior Courts authority to hear and determine the custody of infants in all cases and without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sauls, In re, 538
...the marital status of parents is not now a factor in determining the procedure to obtain custody of a child.' In In re Herring, 268 N.C. 434, 435, 150 S.E.2d 775, 777, a case in which grandmothers were contending for the custody of their orphan grandchild, it is said: 'The statute quoted ab......
-
Blackley v. Blackley
...established, the Court may modify prior custody decrees. G.S. § 50--13.7; Teague v. Teague, 272 N.C. 134, 157 S.E.2d 649; In re Herring, 268 N.C. 434, 150 S.E.2d 775; Stanback v. Stanback, Supra; Thomas v. Thomas, Supra; In re Means, 176 N.C. 307, 97 S.E. 39. However, the modification of a ......
-
Davenport v. Davenport
...by the courts in the interest and welfare of the children, and decrees may be entered as often as the facts justify.' In re Herring, 268 N.C. 434, 150 S.E.2d 775; In re Marlowe, 268 N.C. 197, 150 S.E.2d 204. Hence neither the parent nor the infant has any vested right in a support order whi......
-
Pritchard v. Pritchard
...v. Blackley, supra (285 N.C. 358, 204 S.E.2d 678 (1974)); Teague v. Teague, 272 N.C. 134, 157 S.E.2d 649 (1967); In re Herring, 268 N.C. 434, 150 S.E.2d 775 (1966). However, the modification of a custody decree must be supported by findings of fact based on competent evidence that there has......