Court Opinion

ID: 9812968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:52:39.601707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:21.988621
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: Conceding the statutory habeas corpus to be an appropriate writ in determining the custody of children as between married parents, living in a state of *104separation, C. S., 2241, but not when they are divorced, C. S., 1664; In re Blake, 184 N. C., 278, 114 S. E., 294 (“tbe writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a claim and delivery of tbe person”—In re Parker, 144 N. C., 170, 56 S. E., 878), it does not follow tbe motion for change of venue, made in tbe instant case, was ill-advised or not well founded.
It is provided by 2 C. S., 5039 (enacted 1919) tbat “Tbe Superior Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of any case of a child less than sixteen years of age, residing in or being at tbe time within their respective districts, . . . whose custody is subject to controversy.” As tbe children, whose custody is here in controversy, were in the Seventh Judicial District at the time of the application of the writ, it would seem, under this statute, that the Superior Court of such district has exclusive original jurisdiction of the case. In re Hamilton, 182 N. C., 44, 108 S. E., 385; In re Coston, 187 N. C., 509, 122 S. E., 183.
Nothing was said in Clegg v. Clegg, 186 N. C., 28, 118 S. E., 824; S. c., 187 N. C., 730, 122 S. E., 756, or the TenHoopen Case, 202 N. C., 223, 162 S. E., 619, which militates against this position. Cases decided prior to the enactment of 2 C. S., 5039, are inapplicable or not controlling.
I concur in the disposition of the second question raised by the appeal.
CONNOR, J., concurs in dissenting opinion.