Dull v. Dull

144 S.E.2d 587, 265 N.C. 562, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1047
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 3, 1965·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER Cubiam.

The appellant did not except to the facts found by the court below, and the findings of fact are sufficient to support the order entered below. Goldsboro v. R. R., 246 N.C. 101, 97 S.E. 2d 486. Where no exceptions have been taken to the findings of fact, such findings are presumed to be correct and are binding on appeal. Goldsboro v. R. R., supra, and cited cases.

Orders for the support of minor children are subject to modification upon a proper showing of a change of conditions. Blankenship v. Blankenship, 256 N.C. 638, 124 S.E. 2d 857; Griffin v. Griffin, 237 N.C. 404, 75 S.E. 2d 133; Hardee v. Mitchell, 230 N.C. 40, 51 S.E. 2d 884.

The judgment from which this appeal was taken is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dull v. Dull, 144 S.E.2d 587, 265 N.C. 562, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1047 (N.C. 1965).

144 S.E.2d 587 (Dull v. Dull) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Khajanchi v. Khajanchi
537 S.E.2d 845 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)