Case ID: nc_234/html/0293-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Otjeiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES K. HEUSER v. MARJORIE BEATTY HEUSER.
    (Filed 17 October, 1951.)
    Divorce and Alimony § 17: Judgments § 19—
    Where subsequent to decree of divorce, hearing for the custody of the children of the marriage is heard before the resident judge in another county on motion of defendant, and both parties appear there with counsel and join issue, defendant may not thereafter object on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the motion outside the county.
    
      Appeal by defendant from Frizzelle, J., 12 May, 1951. From Pitt.
    Affirmed.
    
      Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., for plaintiff, appellee.
    
    
      Jones, Reed & Griffin for defendant, appellant.
    
   Per Otjeiam.

Subsequent to divorce decree entered in Pitt Superior Court dissolving tbe bonds of matrimony between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff moved for the custody of two children born of the marriage. After hearing evidence and finding facts, custody was awarded plaintiff. Subsequently defendant moved before the resident judge at Snow Hill in Greene County that custody of the children be awarded to her. Upon facts found custody was again awarded to the plaintiff.

Defendant’s exception to the order on the ground that Snow Hill was not the proper place is without merit, as the hearing at that place was held on defendant’s motion and both parties appeared there with counsel and joined issue. Patterson v. Patterson, 230 N.C. 481, 53 S.E. 2d 658, is not in point. The evidence heard supported the findings and justified the order appealed from.

Judgment affirmed.