Neighbors v. Neighbors
| Decision Date | 19 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 245,245 |
| Citation | 73 S.E.2d 153,236 N.C. 531 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | NEIGHBORS, v. NEIGHBORS. |
J. R. Barefoot, Benson, Hooks & Spence, Smithfield, for plaintiff appellee.
Wellons, Martin & Wellons, Smithfield, for defendant appellant.
It is well established in this jurisdiction that no appeal lies from one superior court judge to another. Phillips v. Ray, 190 N.C. 152, 129 S.E. 177; Wellons v. Lassiter, 200 N.C. 474, 157 S.E. 434; Revis v. Ramsey, 202 N.C. 815, 164 S.E. 358; State v. Lea, 203 N.C. 316, 166 S.E. 292; State v. Standard Oil Co., 205 N.C. 123, 170 S.E. 134; East Coast Fertilizer Co. v. Hardee, 211 N.C. 56, 188 S.E. 623; Dail v. Hawkins, 211 N.C. 283, 189 S.E. 774. Nor, does one superior court judge have the power to overrule or reverse the judgment of another superior court judge previously made in the same action, except in certain well-defined cases. Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N.C. 1; Henry v. Hilliard, 120 N.C. 479, 27 S.E. 130; Price v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co., 201 N.C. 376, 160 S.E. 367; Newton & Co. v. Wilson Furniture Mfg. Co., 206 N.C. 533, 174 S.E. 449; Davis v. Federal Land Bank, 217 N.C. 145, 7 S.E.2d 373; In re Adams, 218 N.C. 379, 11 S.E.2d 163; Scottish Bank v. Daniel, 218 N.C. 710,12 S.E.2d 224.
One of the exceptions to this rule is a decree awarding the custody of minor children. Such a decree determines only the present rights with respect to such custody and is subject to judicial alteration or modification upon a change of circumstances affecting the welfare of the children. In re Means, 176 N.C. 307, 97 S.E. 39; Hardee v. Mitchell, 230 N.C. 40, 51 S.E.2d 884.
Plaintiff's brief admits that there is no allegation of a change of circumstances adversely affecting the welfare of the children involved in this litigation since the order of Judge Harris. It appears that the facts justify and the record supports that admission. It is true the defendant has suffered a heart attack, but this occurred on February 11, 1952, which was prior to the order of Judge Harris. The defendant's physical condition was evident at the time that order was entered and the only change since that time has been an improvement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spence v. Durham
...existed at the earlier date, the former decree would not have been entered by the court in which it was entered. See: Neighbors v. Neighbors, 236 N.C. 531, 73 S.E.2d 153; Lee, North Carolina Family Law, § 226; 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § 819; Annot., 9 A.L.R.2d 629, § It thus be......
-
Benedict v. Coe
...714 (1983). "Such a decree determines only the present rights with respect to such custody...." Id. (quoting Neighbors v. Neighbors, 236 N.C. 531, 533, 73 S.E.2d 153, 154 (1952) (emphasis added) (citations omitted)). With respect to modification of a custody order, N.C.Gen.Stat. § 50-13.7 s......
-
Griffin v. Griffin
...upon a change of circumstances affecting the welfare of the child. Hardee v. Mitchell, 230 N.C. 40, 51 S.E.2d 884. Cf. Neighbors v. Neighbors, 236 N.C. 531, 73 S.E.2d 153. It follows from what we have said that the judgment below Affirmed. ...
-
Moore v. W O O W, Inc.
...principle well established in this jurisdiction that no appeal lies from one Judge of the Superior Court to another (Neighbors v. Neighbors, 236 N.C. 531, 73 S.E.2d 153; East Coast Fertilizer Co. v. Hardee, 211 N.C. 56, 188 S.E. 623) has no application to a mere interlocutory order. Cole v.......