Neighbors v. Neighbors

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Neighbors v. Neighbors

73 S.E.2d 153, 236 N.C. 531, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 583

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 19, 1952

Docket245

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 73 S.E.2d 153 (Neighbors v. Neighbors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neighbors v. Neighbors, 73 S.E.2d 153, 236 N.C. 531, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 583 (N.C. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

YaleNTINE, J.

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. *533 434; Revis v. Ramsey, 202 N.C. 815, 164 S.E. 358; S. v. Lea, 203 N.C. 316, 166 S.E. 292; S. v. Oil Co., 205 N.C. 123, 170 S.E. 134; Fertilizer Co. v. Hardee, 211 N.C. 56, 188 S.E. 623; Rail v. Hawkins, 211 N.C. 283, 189 S.E. 774. Nor, does one Superior Court judge have tbe power to overrule or reverse tbe judgment of another Superior Court judge previously made in tbe 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. Insurance Co., 201 N.C. 376, 160 S.E. 367; Newton v. Mfg. Co., 206 N.C. 533, 174 S.E. 449; Davis v. Land Bank, 217 N.C. 145, 7 S.E. 2d 373; In re Adams, 218 N.C. 379, 11 S.E. 2d 163; Bank v. Daniel, 218 N.C. 710, 12 S.E. 2d 224.

One of tbe exceptions to tbis rule is a decree awarding tbe custody of minor cbildren. Sucb a decree determines only tbe present rights with respect to sucb custody and is subject to judicial alteration or modification upon a change of circumstances affecting tbe welfare of the cbildren. 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 tbe welfare of tbe cbildren involved in tbis litigation since tbe order of Judge Harris.. It appears that tbe facts justify and tbe record supports that admission. It is true tbe defendant has suffered a heart attack, but tbis occurred on 11 February, 1952, which was prior to tbe order of Judge Harris. Tbe defendant’s physical condition was evident at tbe time that order was entered and tbe only change since that time has been an improvement.

There appear no grounds sufficient to justify tbe order appealed from and for that reason tbe same must be

Eeversed.

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

YaleNTINE, J.

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. *533 434; Revis v. Ramsey, 202 N.C. 815, 164 S.E. 358; S. v. Lea, 203 N.C. 316, 166 S.E. 292; S. v. Oil Co., 205 N.C. 123, 170 S.E. 134; Fertilizer Co. v. Hardee, 211 N.C. 56, 188 S.E. 623; Rail v. Hawkins, 211 N.C. 283, 189 S.E. 774. Nor, does one Superior Court judge have tbe power to overrule or reverse tbe judgment of another Superior Court judge previously made in tbe 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. Insurance Co., 201 N.C. 376, 160 S.E. 367; Newton v. Mfg. Co., 206 N.C. 533, 174 S.E. 449; Davis v. Land Bank, 217 N.C. 145, 7 S.E. 2d 373; In re Adams, 218 N.C. 379, 11 S.E. 2d 163; Bank v. Daniel, 218 N.C. 710, 12 S.E. 2d 224.

One of tbe exceptions to tbis rule is a decree awarding tbe custody of minor cbildren. Sucb a decree determines only tbe present rights with respect to sucb custody and is subject to judicial alteration or modification upon a change of circumstances affecting tbe welfare of the cbildren. 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 tbe welfare of tbe cbildren involved in tbis litigation since tbe order of Judge Harris.. It appears that tbe facts justify and tbe record supports that admission. It is true tbe defendant has suffered a heart attack, but tbis occurred on 11 February, 1952, which was prior to tbe order of Judge Harris. Tbe defendant’s physical condition was evident at tbe time that order was entered and tbe only change since that time has been an improvement.

There appear no grounds sufficient to justify tbe order appealed from and for that reason tbe same must be

Eeversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E.2d 153, 236 N.C. 531, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neighbors-v-neighbors-nc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack