Pate v. . Pate
This text of 160 S.E. 450 (Pate v. . Pate) 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.
Opinion
The contention of plaintiff on her appeal to this Court that the order in this action signed by Judge Sinclair on 26 June, 1931, at Smithfield, N. 0., is void, for that Judge Sinclair who had heard defendant’s motion at June Term, 1931, of the Superior Court of Wayne County, was without jurisdiction to make and sign the order out of term and out of Wayne County, cannot be sustained.
It appears both from the record and from the case on appeal filed in this Court that Judge Sinclair was expressly authorized by the parties to this action to make and sign the order out of term and out of the county. Eor this reason the order is valid, notwithstanding it was made and signed at Smithfield, N. C., on 26 June, 1931. Bisanar v. Suttlemyre, 193 N. C., 711, 138 S. E., 1. The motion on which the order with respect to the custody of Dollie Pate, the minor child of the parties, was made, was expressly authorized by statute, C. S., 1664. The order is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
160 S.E. 450, 201 N.C. 402, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pate-v-pate-nc-1931.